Ba) 


A 


I 


reer 


ATI 
* 


Piciiauete 
eet 


ae 


Sashes 
SC ken n et sta ER set 
=. 


Seh tage 


pr Bene 
ge 


lee 


sot 
16 


eprexy 


fs 
3 
ir 
is 
i 
te 


aaa 


bd 


KEN 
Le En 


Sie Sn 


Ei 


Hat: 


Ie 
aay 


NENEN 


wir 


+ 


taeaatt 


hae 


Peres 


+ 
ir 


hs 


1 


bares 


N 
Er 


He 


she 


Breit 


ER spain 


ee 


res 


At en 


whe 


we 


Re 


sya] 


Ete 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/sacramentsdogmatO2pohl 


DOGMATIC THEOLOGY 
IX 


THE POHLE-PREUSS SERIES OF DOG- 
MATIC TEXT-BOOKS 


1. God: His Knowability, Essence and At- 

tributes. vi & 470 pp., $2.00 net. 

2. The Divine Trinity. iv & 207 pp., $1.50 

net. 

3. God the Author of Nature and the Su- 
pernatural. v & 365 pp., $1.75 net. 

Christology. iii & 310 pp., $1.50 net. 

Soteriology. iv & 169 pp., $1 net. 

Mariology. iv & 185 pp., $1 net. 

Grace: Actual and Habitual. iv & 443 
pp., $2 net. 

The Sacraments. Vol. I. (The Sacra- 
ments in General. Baptism. Confirma- 
tion.) vi & 328 pp., $1.50 net. 

9. The Sacraments. Vol. II. (The Holy 

Eucharist.) vi & 408 pp., $1.75 net. . 
10. The Sacraments. Vol. III. (Penance.) 
iv & 270 pp., $1.50 net. 

11. The Sacraments. Vol. IV. (Extreme 
Unction, Holy Orders, Matrimony.) 
iv & 249 pp., $1.50 net. 

12. . Eschatology. iv & 164 pp., $1.00 net. 


TWELVE VOLUMES NET $18. 


ee PSD by ie 


THE SACRAMENTS. 


A DOGMATIC TREATISE 


BY Mn 


THE RT. REV. MSGR. JOSEPH POHLE, Pu.D.,D.D. 


FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY AT ST. 
JOSEPH’S SEMINARY, LEEDS (ENGLAND), LATER 
PROFESSOR OF APOLOGETICS AT THE CATHO- 

LIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 


ADAPTED AND EDITED 


f 


BY 


ARTHUR PREUSS 


r VOLUME II 
The Holy Eucharist 


THIRD, REVISED EDITION 


B. HERDER BOOK CO. 
17 SourH Broapway, St. Louis, Mo. 
AND AT 
68 GREAT RussELL St., Lonpon, W. C. 
1919 


NIHIL OBSTAT 


Sti. Ludovici, die 13, Sept. 1917 
F. G. Holweck, 
Oensor Librorum 


IMPRIMATUR 


Sti. Ludovici, die 15, Sept. 1917 
HJoannes J. Glennon, 
Archiepiscopus 
Sti. Ludovici 


Copyright, 1916 


by 
Joseph Gummersbach 
All rights reserved 
Printed in U. 8. A. 


First edition, 1916 
Second edition, 1917 
Third edition, 1919 


BECKTOLD 
PRINTING & BOOK MFG. CO. 
ST. LOUIS, MO. 


PAGE 

INTRODUCTION I 
Part I, THe REAL PRESENCE ahs ie 9 
Cu. I. The Real Presence as a Fact . Io 

$ 1. Proof from Holy Scripture . Io 

Art. 1. The Promise ; IO. 

Art. 2. The Words of tcunion : 23 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


§ 2. Proof from Tradition . Sop a aur, Mee AR 
Art. 1. Heretical Errors vs. the Teaching of the 
Church’ MWe kesh 45 
Art. 2. The Tesehine a re Fäthers ; 55 
Art. 3. The Argument from Prescription . 80 
Cu. II. The Totality of the Real Presence . ‘ 88 
Cu. III. Transubstantiation, or the Operative Cause of 
the Real Presence h : 102 
§ 1. Definition of raneubeantianon { : 103 
§ 2. Transubstantiation Proved from Holy Scripture 
and Tradition . A ts) 
Cu. IV. The Permanence of ie Real Pees Er ue 
Adorableness of the Holy Eucharist . 128 
§ 1. The Permanence of the Real Presence . 129 
§ 2. The Adorableness of the Holy Eucharist . , 136 
Cu. V. Speculative Discussion of the Mystery of the 
Real Presence Rr Weta sted Nae FAS 
§ 1. First Apparent Con aden: The Continued 
Existence of the Eucharistic Species without — 
their Natural Subject ae al nn tt A ee EAR 
§ 2. Second Apparent Contradiction: The Spirit-Like 
Mode of Existence of Christ’s Eucharistic Body 162 
§ 3. Third Apparent Contradiction: The Simultane- 
ous Existence of Christ in Heaven and in Many 
Places on Earth (Multilocation) . 175 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PAGE 
Part II. Tue Hoty EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT . 7185 
Cu. I. Matter and Form . ; . 189 
§ 1. The Matter, or the Buchten Fleniches : . 189 

§ 2. The Sacramental Form, or the Words of Con- 
secration : . 198 
Cu. II. Sacramental Effects PO ae Macias aS sete th ck aed So. 

§ 1. First and Principal Effect: Union of the Soul 
with Christ by Love ; 2D0 
§ 2. Second Effect: Increase of Sanctitvinge Cee ee 

§ 3. Third Effect: The Blotting Out of Venial Sins 
and the Preservation of the Soul from Mortal Sins 229 

§ 4. Fourth Effect: The Pledge of Man’s Glorious 
Resurrection and Eternal Happiness 232 

Cu. III. The Necessity of the Holy Eucharist for Saige 
HORS . 235 

§ 1. In What Sense the Holy Eucharist: is Neder 
for Salvation . : ‚4226 
§ 2. Communion Under One Kind. : . 246 
Cu. IV. The Minister of the Holy Eucharist . . 255 
§ 1. The Minister of Consecration .. 256 
§ 2. The Minister of Distribution > DOE 
Cu. V. The Recipient of the Holy Eucharist . 264 
§ 1. Objective Capacity . 265 
§ 2. Subjective Worthiness . 207 
Part III. Tue Hoty EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE, OR THE Mass 272 
Cu. I. The Existence of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass 276 
§ 1. The Notion of Sacrifice Explained . 220 
Art. 1. Definition of Sacrifice . 7297. 
Art. 2. Different Kinds of Sacrifice ; ey, 

§ 2. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Proved Ei 
Scripture and Tradition Dar ne ee eres 
Art. 1. The Old Testament . . 295 
Art. 2, The New Testament . ; . 306 
Art. 3. The Argument from bien E 2314 
Art. 4. The Argument from Tradition 2322 
CH.:II, The “Nature ofthe Mass 77, 7. % IE 
§ 1. The Physical Essence of the Mass . 938 


Art. 1. The Mass in its Relation to the Salrihee of 


the Cross 


.. 332 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE | 
Art. 2. The Consecration as the Real Sacrificial Act 340 - 
§ 2. The Metaphysical Essence of the Mass . . . 349 

Art. I. Some Unsatisfactory Theories Regarding 
the Metaphysical Essence of the Mass. . . . 350 

Art. 2. Acceptable Theories Regarding the Meta- 
physical’ Essence. of: the Mass 7 It, she) aso 
Cu. III. The Causality of the Mass. . eye 378 
§ 1. The Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass rel akc le: 
§ 2. In What Manner the Mass Produces its Effects . 381 
DADE eM Rey EL erste ek aa RE RETTEN 20 


INTRODUCTION 


I. NAMES.—No other mystery of the Catholic 
religion has been known by so many different 
names as the Holy Eucharist, considered both as 
a Sacrament and as a Sacrifice. These names 
are so numerous that the Church’s entire teach- 
ing on this dogma could be developed from a mere 
study of them. They are derived from Bibli- 
cal events, from the sacramental species, from 
the effects produced by the Sacrament, from the 
Real Presence, and from the sacrificial charac- 
ter of the Mass. 


a) The names “Eucharist” (exapıoria, gratiarum 
actio), “ Blessing” (ebdoyia, benedictio), and “ Break- 
ing of Bread” (kAdows rod dprov, fractio panis) are of 
Scriptural origin. The first two occur in the Evangelical 
account of the Last Supper; the third goes back to the 
synoptics and St. Paul, and to certain expressions in the 
Acts of the Apostles. “ Blessing” and “ Breaking of 
Bread ” are now obsolete terms, whereas “ Eucharist ” has 
remained in common use in the liturgy and in theological 
treatises since the time of St. Irenaeus. None of these 
three expressions exactly describes the nature of the Sac- 


1 Not bona gratia, as St, Thomas thinks. 
I 


2 INTRODUCTION 


rament. Awe and reverence for the unfathomable mys- 
tery, together with the discipline of the secret (disciplina 
arcani), were responsible for them. 

The titles “ Last Supper ” (sacra coena, deirvov äyıov), 
“Lord’s Supper” (coena Domini, xvpiaxdy deinvov), and 
their poetical synonyms “ Celestial Banquet” (prandium 
coeleste), “ Sacred Banquet” (sacrum convivium), etc., 
which have a special relation to holy Communion, may 
likewise be traced to Sacred Scripture. 

b) “Sacrament of the Bread and Wine” (sa- 
cramentum panis et vini), “ Bread of Heaven” (apros 
&rovpdvıos), and such kindred appellations as “ Bread of 
the Angels” (pams angelorum) and “ Eucharistic 
Bread,” are derived from the visible species. St. Paul 
speaks of the Holy Eucharist as “that bread” * and “ the 
chalice of benediction.” * Far from misrepresenting the 
Sacrament or denying the dogma of Transubstantiation, 
these expressions are in accord with our Lord’s own way 
of speaking, for He calls Himself the “bread which 
cometh down from heaven.” ® 

c) The principal effect of the Holy Eucharist is ex- 
pressed in the name “ Communion” (communio, &vooıs, 
Kkowovia), i. e. union with Christ, union of love. Present 
usage, however, restricts this term almost entirely to the 
reception of the Sacrament, as is apparent from such 
locutions as “to go to Communion,” “to receive holy 
Communion,” etc. The same is true of “ Viaticum,” a 
name used to designate the Blessed Sacrament with spe- 
cial reference to the dying. “Agape” (ayamn, Love 
Feast) ° and “ Synaxis”’ (ovva£ıs, Assembly) are now 
obsolete and occur only in theological treatises. 

2Cfr. 1 Cer. XI, 20. 5Cfr. John VI, 50 sqq. 


81 Cor. XI, 28. 6 Cfr. H. Leclercq, art. * Agape ”’ 
a7 Coteus 6; in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 


INTRODUCTION 3 


d) Of special importance for the dogma of the Real 
Presence are those names which express the nature of 
the Sacrament. The Holy Eucharist, though according 
to its external species a “ Sacrament of Bread and Wine,” 
is in reality the ‘Sacrament of the Body and Blood of 
Christ ” (sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi) or, 
simply, “the Body of the Lord” (corpus Domini), or 
“the Body of Christ” (corpus Christi). This explains 
such expressions as “ Sanctissimum,” “ Holy of Holies,” 
LLC. 

e) The popular designation “ Sacrament of the Altar” 
was introduced by St. Augustine. It points particularly 
to the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, indicating 
not only that as the body of Christ it is reserved on the al- 
tar, but more especially that it is a true sacrifice offered 
at the Mass. The traditional title “ Eucharistia,” which 
appears in writings of authors as ancient as SS. Ignatius of 
Antioch, Justin, and Irenaeus, has in the technical termin- 
ology of the Church and her theologians taken precedence 
of all others, especially since the Council of Trent. 
The Roman Catechism is almost alone in preferring 
“Sacrament of the Altar.” The name “ Table of the 
Lord” (mensa Domini, rpanela Kupiov) was formerly ap- 
plied to the altar on which the Eucharistic sacrifice was of- 
fered; later it came to be used of the sacrifice itself, and 
still later of the communion railing. “ To approach the 
Table of the Lord,” in present-day parlance, means to go 
up to the communion rail to receive the Blessed Sacra- 
ment. The original and deeper meaning of the phrase, 
viz,: to participate in the Eucharistic sacrifice, is no longer 
familiar to the people. The same is true of the word 
I; Keating, The Agape and the Eu- charistie und Agape im Urchristen- 


charist in the Early Church, Lon- tum, Solothurn 1909. 
don 1901; E. Baumgartner, Eu- 


4 ; INTRODUCTION 


“Host” (hostia), which originally meant the sacrificial 
victim (6voia), but is now applied also to unconsecrated 
wafers. The current name for the Eucharist as a sacri- 
fice is “ Sacrifice of the Mass” (sacrificium mn or, 
briefly, “ Mass” (missa). 


2. Tur Position or THE Hoty EUCHARIST 
AMONG THE SACRAMENTS AND MYSTERIES OF THE 
CaTHOLic RELIGION. — Ihe commanding dignity 
of the Holy Eucharist is evidenced by the central 
position which it occupies among the Sacraments 
and by the intimate connection existing between 
it and the most exalted mysteries of the faith. 


a) Though closely related to the Sacraments of Bap- 
tism and Confirmation, and in a special class with them 
because of the kindred concepts of regeneration, puberty, 
and growth (food),’ the Holy Eucharist, by reason of its 
unique character, far transcends all the other Sacraments. 
It is the “ sacramentum sacramentorum” because it con- 
tains and bestows, not only grace, but the Author of 
grace Himself. “ The Sacrament of the Eucharist,” says 
St. Thomas, “is the greatest of all sacraments; first 
because it contains Christ Himself substantially, whereas 
the others contain a certain instrumental power, which 
is a share of Christ’s power; ... secondly, .. . all 
the other Sacraments seem to be ordained to this one 
as to their end; .... thirdly; . ... nearly all the Sac- 
raments terminate in the Eucharist.”® The first of these 
reasons is founded on the Real Presence; the second, on 
the fact that Baptism and Confirmation bestow the right to 


7 C£fr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra- 8 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 65, art. 
ments, Vol. I, 3. 


INTRODUCTION 5 


receive Holy Communion: — Penance, and Extreme Unc- — 
tion make one worthy to receive it; Holy Orders imparts 
the power of consecration; while Matrimony, as an em- 
blem of the union between the mystical Christ and His 
Church, also symbolizes the union of love between Christ 
and the soul. The third reason given by St. Thomas 
is based on the consideration that those who have received 
one of the other Sacraments, as a rule also receive Holy 
Communion.® We may add, as a fourth reason, that 
the Holy Eucharist alone among the Sacraments repre- 
sents a true sacrifice, thereby becoming the very centre 
of the faith and the sun of Catholic worship.’° 

b) Viewed as a mysterium fidei, the Holy Eucharist 
is a veritable compendium of mysteries and prodigies. 
Together with the Trinity and the Incarnation it consti- 
tutes that wonderful triad by which Christianity shines 
forth as a religion of mysteries far transcending the ca- 
pacity of human reason, and by which Catholicism, the 
faithful guardian and keeper of our Christian heritage, 
infinitely excels all pagan and non-Christian religions, 

This mysterious triad is no merely external aggregate. 
Its members are organically connected with one another. 
In the Eucharist, to borrow a profound thought of Schee- 
ben, the series of God’s mysterious communications to hu- 
manity attains its climax. That same divine nature which 
God the Father, by virtue of the eternal generation, com- 
municates to His only-begotten Son, the Son in turn, by 
virtue of the Hypostatic Union, communicates to His 
humanity, formed in the womb of the Virgin, in order 
that thus, as God-man, hidden under the Eucharistic 

9“ Sicut patet, quod ordinati com- charistie der Mittelpunkt_des Glau- 
municant, et etiam baptigati, si bens, des Gottesdienstes und Lebens 


fuerint adulti.” (St. Thomas, I.c.). der Kirche, 2nd ed., Paderborn 
10 Cfr. F, A. Bongardt, Die Eu- 1882, 


6 INTRODUCTION 


species, He might deliver Himself to His Church, who, 
as a tender mother, mystically cherishes the Eucharist as 
her greatest treasure and daily sets it before her children 
as the spiritual food of their souls. First we meet the 
Son of God in the bosom of the eternal Father," next, in 
the bosom of His Virgin Mother,!? and lastly, as it were, 
in the bosom of the Church,—in the tabernacle and in 
the hearts of the faithful."? 


3. Division oF THis TREATISE.—The dog- 
matic teaching of the Church on the Holy Eu- 
charist is admirably stated in the decrees of the 
Council of Trent. 


The Tridentine teaching may be summarized as follows: 
In the Eucharist the Body and Blood of the God-man are 
really, truly, and substantially present for the nourishment 
of souls, by reason of the Transubstantiation of bread 
and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, which takes 
place in the unbloody sacrifice of the New Testament, i. e., 
the Mass. 


This descriptive definition brings out three 
principal heads of doctrine: (1) The Real Pres- 
ence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist; (2) The 


11 Cfr. John I, 18: “ Unigenitus 


Filius, qui est in sinu Patris.” 
12 John I, 14: “ Et Verbum caro 


Eucharist, v. infra, Part I, Ch. V, 
and Lessius, De  Perfectionibus 
Moribusque Divinis, XII, 16.— The 


factum est.” 

13 This threefold relation has been 
artistically depicted by Raphael in 
his famous “ Disputa.’— On the 
miracles involved in the Holy 


intrinsic propriety of the Eucharist 
in its actual form is well demon- 
strated by N. Gihr, Die hl. Sakro- 
mente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, znd 
ed., pp. 414 sqq., Freiburg 1902. 


INTRODUCTION 7 


Eucharist as a Sacrament; and (3) The Eucharist 
as a Sacrifice. Hence the present treatise nat- 
urally falls into three parts. 


GENERAL READINGS: — St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 73 
sqq.; Opusc., XXXVIJT (ed, Mich. de Maria, S. J., Vote ILE: 
pp. 460 sqq., Tiferni Tiberini 1886).— Billuart, Summa S. Thomae 
(ed. Lequette, Vol. VI, pp. 382 sqq.).— Albertus Magnus, 

___De Sacrosancti Corporis Domini Sacramento Sermones (ed. G. 
Jacob, Ratisbon 1893).—*De Lugo, De Venerabili Eucharistiae 
Sacramento (ed. J. P. Fournials, Vols. III and IV, Paris 
.1892).— Bellarmine, Controv. de Sacramento Eucharistiae (ed. 
Fevre, Vol. IV, Paris 1873).— Du Perron, Traité du Sacrement 
de VEucharistie, Paris 1620. 

For a list of modern authors cfr. the bibliography in Pohle- 
Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 3 sq.—In addition to the 
works there mentioned, the following may also be consulted: 
Haitz, Abendmahllehre, Mayence 1872.— X. Menne, Das allerhei- 
ligste Sakrament des Altars als Sakrament, Opfer und Kommunion, 
3 vols., Paderborn 1873 sqq—M. Rosset, De Eucharistiae My- 
sterio, Cambéry 1876.— Card. Katschthaler, De SS. Eucharistiae 
Sacramento, 2nd ed., Ratisbon 1886.—*Card. Franzelin, De SS. 
Eucharistiae Sacramento et Sacrificio, 4th ed., Rome 1887.— 
P. Einige) Der SS: Eucharistiae Mysterio, Treves 1888.—De Au- 
gustinis, S. J.. De Re Sacramentaria, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Rome 
1889.— Card. Billot, De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, Vol. I, 4th ed., 
Rome 1907.—C. Jourdain, La Sainte Eucharistie, 2 vols., Paris 
1897.— Card. Gasparri, Tractatus Canonicus de SS. Eucharistia, 
Paris 1897.— A. Cappellazzi, L’Eucaristia come Sacramento e 
come Sacrificio, Turin 1898.—H. P. Lahousse, S. J., Tractatus 
Dogmatico-Moralis de SS. Eucharistiae Mysterio, Bruges 1899. 
—*Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IX, Mayence 
1901.— N. Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 
and ed., Freiburg 1902.—*Scheeben-Atzberger, Handbuch der 
kath. Dogmatik, Vol. IV, Part 2, Freiburg 1901.— P. Batiffol, 
Etudes d’Histoire et de Theologie Positive, Vol. II, 3rd ed., 
Paris 1906.— J. C. Hedley, The Holy Eucharist, London 1907.— 


8 INTRODUCTION 


W. J. Kelly, The Veiled Majesty, or Jesus in the Eucharist, 
London 1903.— D. Coghlan, De SS. Eucharistia, Dublin 1913.— 
A. M. Lépicier, Tractatus de SS. Eucharistia, 2 vols., Paris 1917.~ 
Ed. Hugon, O. P., La Sainte Eucharistie, Paris 1916.—J. S. 
Vaughan, Thoughts For All Times, 23rd Am. ed., Springfield, 
Mass., 1916, pp. 119 sqq.—W. Lescher, O. P., The Eucharistic 
Mission, London and New York 1908 (contains a summary of 
the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on the Holy Eucharist, 
pp. 1-34). A 

AGREES, tabla Sh nev BERNER 2 RR TR ae 2 


*) The asterisk before an author’s name indicates that his treatment of 
the subject is especially clear and thorough. As St. Thomas is invariably 
the best guide, the omission of the asterisk before his name never means 
that we consider his work inferior to that of other writers, There are 
vast stretches of theology which he scarcely touched. 


PARI I 
THE REAL PRESENCE 


In this part of our treatise we shall consider 
(1) the fact of the Real Presence of the Body 
and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, 
which is, as it were, the central dogma; then the 
cognate dogmas grouped about it, viz.: (2) the 
Manner of the Real Presence, (3) Transubstan- 
tiation, and (4) The Permanence of the Real 
Presence and the consequent Adorability of the 
Eucharist. 

The believing Catholic accepts these four dog- 
mas unquestioningly, knowing, as he does, that 
they are mysteries which the human mind cannot 
understand. Theologians, however, love to in- 
dulge in pious speculations and view the august 
mystery of the Eucharist under various aspects. 
Hence to the four chapters already indicated we 
shall add a fifth, devoted to the speculative dis- 
oussion of the Real Presence.) 


CHAPTER 


THE REAL PRESENCE AS A FACT 


SEC TON a 


PROOF FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE 


The New Testament contains two classic texts 
which prove the Real Presence, vis.: Christ’s 
promise recorded in the sixth chapter of St. 
John’s Gospel, and the words of institution as re- 
ported by the synoptics and St. Paul (1 Cor. XI, 


23.1800, )} 
ARTICLENT 


THE PROMISE 


I. Our Lorp’s Discourse AT CAPHARNAUM, 
Joun VI, 25-72.—Christ prepared His hearers 
for the sublime discourse containing the promise 
of the Eucharist, as recorded in the sixth 
chapter of St. John’s Gospel, by two great 
miracles wrought on the preceding day. 


1 The Fourth Gospel, which alone doubt because the author was aware 
records the exact words of the of the existence of four different 
promise, says nothing of the actual authentie accounts of this event by 
institution of the Eucharist, no other writers. 


Io 


PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE II 


a) The multiplication of the loaves and fishes was in- 
tended to show that Jesus possessed creative power; the 
miracle of walking unsupported on the waters, that this 
power was superior to, and independent of, the laws of 
nature. Both together proved that, as God-man, He was 
able to provide the supernatural food which He was about 
to promise.? After describing this wonderful event, the 
sacred writer goes on to tell how a great multitude, in- 
spired by false Messianic hopes and a desire to see the 
miracle repeated, sought our Lord and finally found 
Him at Capharnaum (John VI, 1-25). 


b) Then follows the discourse in which Christ 
promised the Eucharist (John VI, 26-72). This 
graphic discourse is divided into two parts, the 
interrelation of which is controverted among 
Catholic theologians. 


While some® take the first part (John VI, 26-48) 
metaphorically and interpret the “ Bread of Heaven”’ as 
Christ Himself, who, being the object of faith, must be 
received as a spiritual food; * many others hold that the 
entire discourse deals with the Eucharist and that in the 
first part our Lord merely wishes to show that faith is an 
indispensable requisite for the salutary reception of the 
Bread of Heaven. This difference of opinion, however, 
is unimportant so far as the dogmatic argument for the 
Real Presence is concerned, since both parties agree that, 
beginning with verse 48,° or at least with verse 52, the 
text must be interpreted literally. In matter of fact, 


2Cfr. P. Keppler, Komposition 4 Panis vitae — cibus fidei: 
des Johannesevangeliums, pp. 47 5 Perrone, Schwetz, Chr. Pesch, 
sqq., Freiburg 1884. . Tepe, et al. 


8 Toletus, Franzelin, Atzberger, 6 This is Wiseman’s theory. 
Gihr, ei al. N 


12 THE: REAL (PRESENCE 


though there is a close connection between the two sec- 
tions of the discourse, the second clearly begins with a 
change of subject. From the 26th to the 51st verse, 
Christ speaks of Himself figuratively as the Bread of 
Heaven, 7. e., as a spiritual food to be received by faith. 
Beginning with verse 51, however, He speaks of His Flesh 
and Blood as a real food, to be literally eaten and drunk. 
Though the sentence “I am the bread of life” forms 
the keynote of the whole discourse, the vast difference 
between the predicates attributed to this bread shows that, 
whereas it may be taken figuratively in the first part, it 
is employed in a strictly literal sense in the second. 
Atzberger effectively summarizes the arguments for 
this view as follows: “In the first part, the food is 
of the present, in the second, of the future; there it is 
given by the Father, here by the Redeemer Himself; there 
it is simply called ‘bread,’ here ‘the Flesh of the Son of 
man;’ there our Lord speaks only of bread, here of His 
Flesh and Blood; there, it is true, He calls Himself 
_ ‘bread,’ but He avoids the expression ‘to eat me,’ where 
one would expect to meet it; here He speaks both of ‘ eat- 
ing me’ and of ‘eating my Flesh and drinking my 
Blood. ”® Only once does Christ make an excep- 
tion, namely, where He says in the first section: “ Labor 
not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which en- 
dureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will 
give you.” ® This reference seems to point to an inten- 
tional connection between the two sections of our Lord’s 
discourse ; but it does not prove that the whole of the first 

"John VI, 35, 48. nv Bpwow Thy AmoAAvuernv, 

8 Scheeben-Atzberger, Handbuch dAA& Thy Bpdow Thy uevovoav eis 
der kath. Dogmatik, Vol. IV, 2, 569, | {whv aiwvıov, Rv 6 vids Tov dvOpe- 


Freiburg 1901. mov vuiy woe. 
9John VI, 27: ’Epyaleode un 


BROOF, FROM) SCRIPTURE 2% 


section must be taken literally. There are several pas- 
sages which are obviously meant to be figurative. For 
instance, when Jesus says: “I am the bread of life; he 
that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth 
in me shall never thirst.”1° And again: “ Amen, amen, 
I say unto you: He that believeth in me hath everlasting | 
LERNT 


c) It is of great importance to show that the 
second part of our Lord’s discourse demands 
a strictly literal interpretation. The early Prot- 
estant contention that the whole chapter must 
be understood figuratively'* has been given 
up by Delitzsch, Köstlin, Keil, Kahnis, J. Hoff- 
mann, Dieterich, and other modern non-Catholic 
EREIELES. 

2. THE REAL PRESENCE PROVED FROM JOHN 
VI, 52 soa.— Whatever one may hold regarding 
the first section of our Lord’s discourse, the 
second plainly demands a literal interpretation. 
The whole structure makes a figurative interpre- 
tation impossible. Christ’s hearers showed by 
their conduct that they understood Him literally, 
and the Fathers and the early councils followed 
their example. | 

The decisive passages run as follows: 


10 John VI, 35. Instit. Theol., Vol. IV, pp. 187 sq., 
11 John VI, 47.—Cfr. Franzelin, Paris 1896. 
De SS. Eucharistiae Sacramento et 12 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucha- 


Sacrificio, thes. 3, Rome 1887; a dif- ristia, I, 5 sqq. 
ferent view is defended by Tepe, 


14 THE REAL (PRESENCE 


- 


John VI, 52: “. .. the bread that I will give 
is my flesh, for the life of the world.” | 

John VI, 54: ". .. except you eat the flesh 
of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall 
not have life in you.” 

John VI, 56: “For my flesh 1s meat indeed, 
and my blood is drink indeed.” 


These and kindred texts must be interpreted literally, 
(a) because the whole structure of the discourse demands 
it; (b) because a figurative interpretation would involve 
absurd consequences; (c) because our Lord’s hearers 
understood Him literally and were not corrected by Him, 
and (d) because the Fathers and councils of the Church 
have always upheld the literal interpretation. 

a) The whole structure of the discourse demands a 
literal interpretation of the words, “ Eat the flesh of 
the Son of man and drink His blood.” Mention is made 
of three different kinds of food: the manna which Moses 
dispensed to the Israelites in the desert,!* the “ Bread of 
Life”? which the Heavenly Father gives to men in the In- 
carnate Word to nourish their faith,!* and the (Eucharis- 
tic) Bread of Life which Christ Himself promises to give 
to His followers.” The manna was a thing of the past, a 
transitory food incapable of warding off death. The 
Bread of Heaven, 7. e., the Son of God made man, is of the 
present and constitutes, in as far as it is accepted, a means 
of spiritual life. The third kind of food, which Christ 
Himself promises to give at a future time, is new and 
essentially different, i. e., His own Flesh and Blood to be 
eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. The first of these 


13 John VI, 31, 32, 49, 59. 15 John VI, 27, 52, 
14 John ‚VI; 32, ‚33. 


PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 15 


foods was given in the past by Moses, the second is given 
at the present time by the Father, the third will be given 
in the future by the Son. Cfr. John VI, 32: “ Moses: 
gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth 
you ther true ‘bread, from: heaven. 4?) John VI, ga 
‘“.. . the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life | 
of the world.” ** The distinction is clear-cut and unmis- 
takable. The “ Bread from Heaven” is Christ Himself, 
given to the Jews as an object of faith through the In- 
carnation. The “ Bread of Life” promised by Christ is a 
new food, to be dispensed at some future time, and to be 
eaten, not metaphorically but literally, in Holy Commun- 
ion. Had our Lord not meant to speak in the literal 
sense, why this emphatic distinction between eating and 
drinking, food and drink, flesh and blood,® and why 
should He have repeatedly employed as a syno- 
nym of dayeiv, “to eat,”?° the much more graphic 
term tpwyev, which means literally “to crunch with the 
teeifüne 

If we take the manna of the desert, which our Lord 
repeatedly mentions in His discourse, as a type of the 
Eucharist, we can argue as follows: Assuming that the 
Eucharist contained merely consecrated bread and wine, 
instead of the true Body and Blood of Christ, the original 
would not excel the type by which it was prefigured.* 
But St. Paul teaches that the original must transcend 
its type in the same way in which a body excels its shadow, 
and consequently the Eucharist contains more than mere 


16 John VI, 32: “Non Moyses 18 Cfr. John VI, 54 sqa. 


dedit (deöwkev) vobis panem de 19 John VI, 54, 56, 58. 
coelo, sed Pater meus dat ($löweıv) 20 John VI,..52, 53. - 
vobis panem de coelo verum.” 21 Cir.) Hebel X, 3; 2 Cor X, 3 


17 John VI, 52: “Et panis quem sqgq. 
ego dabo (éyw Öwow), caro mea est 
pro mundi vita.” 


16 THE REAL PRESENCE 


bread and wine, namely, the true Flesh and Blood of 
Christ, as the Lord Himself declared.2* Other types of 
the Holy Eucharist, according to the teaching of the 
Fathers, are: the bread and wine offered by Melchise- 
dech,?? the loaves of proposition,?* the blood of the 
covenant,”” and the paschal lamb.?® 


b) The words “Eat my flesh and drink my 
blood” must be understood literally for the 
further reason that a figurative interpretation is 
impossible. True, the phrase “to eat one’s flesh” 
was employed metaphorically among the Semites - 
and in Holy Scripture itself, but only in the sense 
of “to persecute, to hate bitterly,” which cannot 
possibly be meant here. For had our Lord in- 
tended His words to be taken in this sense, it 
would appear that He promised His enemies 
eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recom- 
pense for the injuries and persecutions directed 
against Him. The phrase, “to drink one’s blood,” 
has no other figurative meaning in Holy 
Scripture than that of dire chastisement,?” which 
is as inapplicable here as in the phrase “‘to eat 
one’s flesh.” Hence the declaration: ‘He that 
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath ever- 
lasting life,’ °° must be understood of the actual 
partaking of Christ in person, 7. e. literally. 


22 Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, I, 25 Ex. XXIV, 8; Heb. IX, 17 sqa. 
of, 20x. NIG aorsaq: 
28 Gen. XIV, 18; cfr. Ps. CIX, 4. 27 Cir, Is. XLIX) 263 Apoc. ov L, 


24x. (RAV, 503) 3: Kings’ XXII, 6. 
6 sag. 28 John VI, 55: “ Qui manducat 


FROOE FROM: SCRIPTURE 17 


It is objected that the expression “to eat one” inthe 
sense of loving him beyond measure was as familiar to 
the Jews as it is to some modern nations. Those who 
make this assertion cite Job XXXI, 31: “ Direrunt viri 
tabernaculs mei: Quis det de carnibus eius, ut sature- 
mur?” which our English Bible translates: “If the 
men of my tabernacle have not said: Who will give us 
of his flesh, that we may all be filled?” However, com- 
petent exegetes interpret this text either of the hatred Job 
felt for his enemies or of the hospitality he practiced 
towards his friends.” The first-mentioned interpreta- 
tion confirms the contention that the phrase “to eat one,” 
if used figuratively by the Hebrews, was always used in 
an odious sense; the latter does not disprove it. If cer- 
tain of the Fathers interpret this obscure passage as 
expressing intense love, it was because they regarded Job 
as a type of Christ, and consequently attached a typical 
and prophetic sense to the text. 

Such other texts as Prov. IX, 5: “Come, eat my 
bread, and drink the wine which I have mingled for 
you, amd) Kecius; X IM, 2070) They: that eat me 
shall yet hunger, and they that drink me shall yet 
thirst,” ** are too plainly figurative as to admit of mis- 
understanding. What else could the Divine Wisdom, 
which is here personified, mean by inviting men to “ eat 
my bread” and to “eat me,” than to nourish their souls 
with supernatural truth? The case is radically dif- 
ferent in the Gospel of St. John, where the living God- 
man invites and commands men to eat His flesh and drink 
His blood. Here the phrase must be taken literally, since 


meam carnem et bibit meum sangui- dite panem meum et bibite vinum, 
nem, habet vitam aeternam.” quod miscui vobis.” 

29 Cfr. Knabenbauer, Comment. 31 Ecclus. XXIV, 29: ‘ Qui 
in Librum Iob, Paris 1886. edunt me, adhuc esurient, et qui 


30 Prov. IX, 5: “Venite, come- bibunt me, adhuc sitient.” 


18 THE REAL PRESENCE 


the only possible figurative interpretation would entail 
absurd consequences. 


c) The literal interpretation of our Lord's 
discourse agrees perfectly with the conduct of 
those who heard Him, and with the way in which 
He met their doubts and objections. 


a) The murmuring of the Jews and their query: 
“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” *? is clear 
evidence that they had understood Him literally. Yet, 
far from repudiating this construction of His words, 
Jesus repeated them in a most solemn manner, saying: 
“ Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of 
the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life 
in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 
hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last 
day.” ** And as if to prevent a figurative interpretation 
of His words, He continued: “For my flesh is meat 
indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” ** The Evangelist 
tells us that many of His disciples were scandalized and 
protested: “ This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” . 
But instead of retracting what He had said, Christ re- 
proached them for their want of faith and demanded that 
they believe Him, by alluding to His divine origin and His 
future ascension into Heaven. St. John tells us: “ But 
Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at 
this, said to them: Does this scandalize you? If then 
you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was 


82 John VI, 53. 

83 John _Vi,. 54 :sq.:. “ Amen, 
amen dico vobis: Nisı manducaveritis 
carnem Filit hominis et biberitis 
eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam 
in vobis. Qui manducat meam 


carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, 
habet vitam aeternam, et ego resu- 
scitabo eum in novissimo die.” 

84 John VI, 56: “Caro enim mea 
vere (add\nOas) est cibus, et sanguis 
meus vere (adnOws) est potus.” 


PROOF FROM ‘SCRIPTURE 19 


before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profit- 
eth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are ° 
spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe 
not.” °° He could have cleared up the misunderstand- 
ing, had there been one, with a single word, as He had 
often done before,?® but He allowed them to depart with- 
out further ado,” and finally turned to the twelve 
Apostles with the question: “ Will you also go away?” 38 
Then Peter stepped forth and humbly and believingly re- 
plied in the name of his colleagues: “ Lord, to whom 
shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life, ‘and 
we have believed and have known that thou art the 
Christ, the Son of God.” 2° Thus the number: of His 
faithful disciples diminished, yet rather than recall His 
words or gloss over the literal sense in which they had 
been understood, our Lord would have allowed even the 
twelve Apostles to go away. 

8B) The Zwinglian and Anglican interpretation of the 
passage “It is the spirit that quickeneth,” etc., in the 
sense of a glossing over, is wholly inadmissible. For in 
the first place such a glossing over would have practically 
amounted to a formal retractation of His teaching, be- 
cause the expressions “to eat one’s flesh” and “ drink 
one’s blood” cannot consistently be explained as “ believ- 
ing in him.” Why should our Lord have uttered non- 
sense, only to recall His utterance afterwards? Clearly 
the Apostles and disciples did not understand the passage 
as a retraction, for in spite of it the disciples severed their 
connection with Jesus, while the Twelve accepted with 
simple faith a mystery which they did not as yet under- 


35 John VI, 62 sqq. 37 John VI, 68, 
use Cie oun) III 4; EV 335 38 Ibid, 
VIE) 393) VILE, 57 sa. 3) XT! Io: 39 John VI, 69 sq. 


Matth. XVI, 6, etc. 


20 THE REAL*PRESENCE 


stand. Nor did Christ say, as the Zwinglians would have 
His Mey? flesh as Spirit, © dhe. to, be understood in a 
figurative sense, but He said: “ My words are spirit and 
life.” 

But what did our Lord mean when He added: “It is 
the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The 
words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life”? *° 

There are two views regarding the interpretation of this 
text. Many of the Fathers declare that the true flesh of 
Jesus (caro, oap&) must not be understood as separated 
from His Divinity (spiritus, mveüna), and hence not in a 
cannibalistic sense but as belonging entirely to the super- 
natural economy.*t The second and more scientific ex- 
planation *? asserts that in the Scriptural opposition of 
“flesh” to “spirit” the former always signifies carnal- 
mindedness, the latter, mental perception illuminated by 
faith, and that it was the intention of Jesus in this passage 
to give prominence to the fact that the sublime mystery 
of the Eucharist can be grasped only in the light of super- 
natural faith, whereas it must remain unintelligible to the 
carnal-minded, who are weighed down under the burden 
of sin. St. Chrysostom explains: “How, therefore, 
did He say: The flesh profiteth nothing? Not of His 
flesh does He mean this; far from it; but of those who 
would understand what He had said in a carnal sense. . . . 
You see, there is question not of His flesh, but of the 
fleshly way of hearing.” *° 


40 John VI, 64: “ Spiritus est aut in macello venditur, non quomo- 


qui vivificat, caro non prodest quid- 
quam; verba quae ego locutus sum 
vobis, spiritus et vita sunt.” 

41 Thus St. Augustine, Tract. in 
Ioa., 27, n. 5: “Non prodest quid- 
quam, sed quomodo illi intellexe- 
runt; carnem quippe sic intellexe- 
runt, quomodo in cadavere dilaniatur 


do spiritu vegetatur. . . . Spiritus 
ergo est qui vivificat, caro autem non 
prodest quidquam: sicut illi intel- 
lexerunt carnem, non sic ego do ad 
manducandum carnem meam.”’ 

42 Its principal champion is Mal- 
donatus. 

43 Hom. in Ioa., 47, n. 2.—On 


PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 21 


d) The concurrent testimony of the Fathers. 
and councils constitutes another strong argument 
for the literal interpretation of our Lord’s dis- 
course. While the figurative explanation pre- 
ferred by a few Catholic theologians need not be 
“suspected of heresy,” ** Maldonatus is undoubt- 
edly right in denouncing it as temerarious. 


a) Maldonatus * has brought together a huge mass of 
citations to show that the Fathers are unanimous in inter- 
preting John VI, 52 sqq. literally.* Even those who 
apply the first part of our Lord’s discourse to the “ cibus 
fidei,” admit the literal interpretation as the only possible 
one for the second part. We have already quoted St. 
Augustine and St. John Chrysostom. Augustine, though 
inclined to assign first place to the “ spiritual eating of 
Christ in the faith,” 47 does not reject the literal, but uses 
it as a basis for the figurative interpretation.“ 

B) As regards the councils, that of Ephesus, 431, 
approved St. Cyril’s synodal letter to Nestorius, in which 
John VI, 55 is cited in support of the “ life- “giving virtue ” 
of the hypostatically united Flesh of Christ in holy Com- 


the different interpretations of John 48 Cfr. Tract. in Ioa., 26, n. 18: 
ME, G4. cfrs N. Gihr, Die Al Sa- “Qui non manet in Christo et in 
kramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, quo non manet Christus, procul 
2nd ed., pp. 372 sqq. dubio nec manducat  spiritualiter 

44Cfr. Alb. a Bulsano, Theol. carnem eius nec bibit eius sangui- 
Dogmat., ed. Gottfr. a Graun, Vol. nem, licet carnaliter et visibiliter 
II, p. 597, Innsbruck 1894. premat dentibus sacramentum cor- 

45 Commentar. in Ioa., c. 6. poris et sanguinis Christi; sed 

46Cfr. also Val. Schmidt, Die magis tantae rei sacramentum ad 
Verheissung der Eucharistie bei den indicium sibi manducat et bibit, quia 


Vätern, Würzburg 1900; De Au- immundus praesumpsit ad Christi 

gustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, Vol. accedere sacramenta, quae aliquis 

I, 2nd ed., pp. 460 sqq. non digne sumit, nisi qui mundus 
47 Cfr. Tract. in Ioa., 25, n. 12: CRT 


“ Ut quid paras dentem et ventrem? 
Crede, et manducasti.” 


22 THE REAL PRESENCE 


munion.* The Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea 
(787) condemned the contention of the Iconoclasts that 
the Eucharist is “the true, adorable image of Christ,’ °° 
cited John VI, 54, and concluded as follows: “ There- 
fore it is clearly proved that neither our Lord, nor the 
Apostles, nor the Fathers ever referred to the unbloody 
sacrifice that is offered up by the priest as an image, but 
[called it] the very Body and the very Blood.” °! ‘Those 
Catholic theologians who preferred the figurative inter- 
pretation °2 were led to do so by controversial reasons. 
In their perplexity they imagined that the demand of 
the Hussites and Protestant Utraquists for the chalice 
for the laity could not be effectively controverted from 
Scripture in any other way. In view of this circum- 
stance the Tridentine Council refrained from a formal 
definition on the subject,®* though its own attitude is 
plain from the fact that it embodied several passages 
from the sixth chapter of St. John in its argument for 
the sacramental.reception of the Eucharist in holy Com- 
munion.** 


Coll. 53 Cfr, Sess, XXT) | cape iz: 


. utcumque [sermo Christi] 


49 Cfr. Hardouin, 
Vol. I, p. 1290. 


Concil., 


cs 
. 


50 rhy ddnOq TOU Xpıorov eiköva. 

51 Cfr. Hardouin, op. cit., Vol. 
IV, 370: “Ergo liquido demon- 
stratum est, quod nusquam Dominus 
vel Apostoli vel Patres sacrificium 
incruentum per sacerdotem oblatum 
dixerunt imaginem, sed ipsum cor- 
pus et ipsum sanguinem.” 

52 Notably Nicholas of Cusa, 
Cardinal Cajetan, Ruardus Tapper, 
John Hessel, and the elder Jansen- 
ius. 


iuxta varias ss. Patrum et Doctorum 
interpretationes intelligatur.” 

54 Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess, 
XIII, cap. 2; Sess. XXI, cap. 1.— 
On the debates that took place on 
this subject at Trent, cfr. Pallavi- 
cini, Hist. Conc. Trid., XVII, 11. 
A valuable work is Fr. Patrizi, S. J., 
Commentationes Tres de Scripturis 
Divinis, de Peccati Originalis Propa- 
gatione a Paulo Descripta, de Christo 
Pane Vitae, Rome 1851. 


PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 23 


ARTICEE 2 


THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION 


The Biblical argument for the Real Presence 
attains its climax in the words of institution, 
which have come down to us in four different 
versions, of which two may be grouped as 
“Petrine,” because they are obviously derived 
from St. Peter, while the other two, handed down 
by St. Paul and his companion St. Luke, may just 
as appropriately be called “Pauline.” 

The “Petrine” account, it will be noticed, is the 
simpler of the two, whereas the “Pauline” is more 
detailed, and, because of its wording, of greater 
importance for the dogma of the Mass.! 


THE PAULINE ACCOUNT 


Pukey XX sqq.: 
floc est corpus meum, quod 
pro vobis datur: hoc facite 
in meam  commemora- 
tionem, Toürd &orı rd Copa 


THE PETRINE ACCOUNT 


Matth. XXVI, 26 sqq.: 
Hoc est enim corpus meum. 
Toto €or. TO copd pov. 


ov TO darep tuov ddd evov: 


Touro mowite eis Ty Eu 
avdpvnow, 
Hic est enim sanguis’ Hic est calix Novum 


meus Novi Testamenti, qui 
pro multis effundetur in 
remissionem peccatorum. 


Testamentum in sanguine 
meo, qui pro vobis funde- 


tur. Tovro TO mornpiov N 


1V. infra, Part III. 


24 THE REAL PRESENCE 


ar [4 E \ 7 "4 N 
Tovro yap Eorı TO alpa pov TO 
~ ~ , x x 
Ts KaLVNS diabykys TO rept 


~ / > 
rohAov exxuvvopevoy eis apeow 


LpapTLov. 
Mark XIV, 22.8sgQ:: 
Hoc est corpus meum. 


REN REN \ ~ 
Tovrd eorı TO Opa pov. 


Hic est sangwis meus 
Novi Testamenti, qui pro 
multis effundetur. 
&orı TO alud pov THS Kalns 
TOAA@Y 


~ ’ 
Tovro 


Siabyens, TO vUmep 


ERXUVVOHEVOV. 


x 5 64 > ~ Y , 
Kay ta KY) Ev TO al WATE 


\ ~ > 
pov, TO Umép ULOV ERXUVVOLEVOV. 


1, .Cor Ra Seeger 
Hoc est corpus meum, 
quod pro vobis tradetur: 
hoc facite in meam com- 
memorationem. 


> \ N ~ \ € N € m 
€oTlL TO owpa TO VIEp VUWV 


~ Tf 
TovTo ov 


’ ~ ~ > 
[xAcbpevoy]+ TOUTO TOLELTE eis 


x CAS 3 / 
THY ENV avapynaWV. 


Hic calix Novum Testa- 
mentum est ın meo san- 
guine: hoc facite, quoties- 
cumque bibetis, ın meam 
commemorationem. Tovro 
76 morhpuv 5 Kaw SiabyKy 
éoTly &v TO EUG alpnarı: TOVTO 
mouite, dodxis av mivmre, eis 


Thy éuny avapvnow. 


The decisive words of all these passages are: 
“This is my body, this is my blood.’ » The 
Catholic Church has always interpreted them 
in the strictly literal sense. The first to explain 
them figuratively was Berengarius, who was fol- 
lowed by a few other heretics of comparatively 


modern date.? 


The figurative interpretation is inadmissible. 


2Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 2 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 874). 


PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 25 


This can be shown by proving (1) that the literal 
explanation is the only correct one, and (2) that 
the heretical objections raised against it are 
groundless. 

(bee) [IiTeRAr INTERPRETATION OF THE 
WORDS OF INSTITUTION SHOWN TO BE THE ONLY 
CORRECT OnE.—The words of institution are so 
plain that they require no interpretation. 


If an ordinary man were to break bread and say: “ Eat, 
this is my body,” no one would take him seriously ; still it 
would be impossible to explain his words in a figurative 
sense. Belief in the Real Presence presupposes belief in 
the Divinity of Christ.® 

We are compelled to adopt the literal interpretation of 
the words of institution, (a) by the very existence and 
character of the four Evangelical accounts quoted above; 
(b) by the wording of the Scriptural text, and (c) by the 
circumstances accompanying the institution. 


a) Ihe very existence of four different ac- 
counts, all couched in simple language and per- 
fectly consonant with one another in every essen- 
tial detail, compels us to interpret them literally. 


a) When four independent authors, writing in differ- 
ent countries and at different times, relate the words of 
institution to different circles of readers, the occurrence 
of an unusual figure of speech would somehow or other 
betray itself, either in a difference of word-setting (as is 
the case with regard to the chalice), or in the unequivocal 


3Cfr. J. Hehn, Die Einsetzung des hl. Abendmahles als Beweis für die 
Gottheit Christi, Würzburg 1900. 


26. THE REAL PRESENCE 


expression of the meaning really intended, or at least in 
the addition of some such remark as: “ He spoke, how- 
ever, of the sign of His body.” Such explanatory re- 
marks frequently occur in Sacred Scripture, even in less 
important texts (cfr. John II, 19 sqq.; III, 3 sqq.; iA 
32 sqq.; Matth. XVI, 6 sqq., XVII, 12 sq.) and where 
several writers supplement one another (e. g., John XII, 
4 sq.; cfr. Matth. XXVI, 8; Luke XXIIH, 39; Matth. 
XXVII, 44). In the present case, however, we nowhere 
discover the slightest ground for a figurative interpreta- 
tion of the words “ my body,” “my blood.” If, then, the 
literal interpretation were false, the Scriptural record 
would have to be considered as the cause of a pernicious 
doctrinal error and of the grievous crime of rendering 
idolatrous homage to mere bread (artolatria),— a suppo- 
sition utterly irreconcilable with the character of the four 
sacred writers and with the inspiration of the text. 


ß) This view is confirmed by the important cir- 
cumstance that one of the four narrators, St. 
Paul, has himself interpreted his account literally. 


In his First Epistle to the Corinthians the Apostle 
says the unworthy recipient of the Eucharist is “ guilty 
of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” Cfr. 1 Cor. 
XI, 27 sqq.: “ Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, 
or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty 
of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord...) Bor he 
that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh 
judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the 
Lord.”* There could be no question of a grievous 
offense against Christ Himself if His true Body and 


41 Cor. XI, 27 sqq.: “Itaque panem hunc vel biberit calicem 
(hore) quicungue manducaverit Domini indigne (dvafiws), reus erit 


PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 27 


Blood were not really present in the Eucharist. Surely 
St. Paul would not have spoken thus of the manna or 
the paschal lamb! 


b) The laws of human speech as well as the 
appositional phrases used by the sacred writers 
in connection with the terms “body” and “blood,” 
directly exclude the possibility of a figurative 
interpretation.’ 

«) The necessity of adopting the natural and 
literal sense of the words of institution is not, as 
our opponents allege, based upon the assump- 
tion that Christ could not have resorted to. the 
use of figures of speech in inculcating His doc- 
trine, but upon the evident requirements of the 
case, which demand that He should notwinya 
matter of such paramount importance, employ 
meaningless and deceptive metaphors. _ 


Figures enhance the clearness of speech only when the 
figurative meaning is obvious, either from the nature of 
the case (e. g., from a reference to a statue of Lincoln, by 
saying, “ This is Lincoln”), or from the usages of 
common parlance (as in the case of the synecdoche: 
“ This chalice is my blood ”), or at least from some pre- 
vious agreement (as: “Let us assume that these two 
sticks represent Plato and Aristotle ”). Now, neither 
from the nature of the case nor in common parlance is 
bread an apt or a possible symbol of the human body. 
corporis et sanguinis Domini. ...  bibit: non diiudicans (un dlarpivwv) 


Qui enim manducat et. bibit indigne, corpus Domini.” 
sudicium (kpiua) sibi manducat et 5V. No. 2, infra, pp. 32 sqq. 


28 THE REAL PRESENCE 


Were one to say of a piece of bread: “ This is the body 
of Cesar,” he would not be using a figure but simply 
talk nonsense. There is but one means of rendering 
a symbol, improperly so called, clear and intelligible, 
namely, by conventionally settling beforehand what it is 
to signify, as, for instance, if one were to say: “ Let us 
imagine these two pencils to be Plato and Socrates.” 
Christ, however, instead of informing His Apostles that 
He intended to use such a figure, told them rather the 
contrary in the discourse containing the promise: “ The 
bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the 
world.” The same applies, servata proportione, to wine 
as the symbol of human blood. To say, therefore, that 
Christ, by using the words “ This is my Body, this is 
my Blood,” merely meant to institute an image or a symbol 
of His Body and Blood, is not to say that He spoke 
figuratively, but to charge Him with talking nonsense,— 
a blasphemous charge. The natural sense of the words of 
institution is so clear and compelling that even Luther 
wrote to his followers in Strassburg, in 1524: “I am 
caught, I cannot escape, the text is too strong.”*7 When 
the God-man declares: “This is my Body,’ who but 
an unbeliever would venture to contradict Him by say- 
ing: “ No, it is mere bread !.”’ 


B) The literal interpretation of the words of 
institution is fairly forced upon us by the signifi- 
cant appositional phrases used by the sacred 
writers in connection with the terms “corpus” 
and “‘sanguts.” 

6 John VI, 52. See Art. 1, supra. heraus, der Text ist zu gewaltig da 


7Apud De Wette, II, 577: und will sich mit Worten nit lassen 
“ Aber ich bin gefangen, kann nicht aus dem Sinn reissen.” 


ee a ae 
a al tai 


PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE ees, 


“Almost every syllable of the original Greek,” as 
Clarke points out, “especially the articles, is singularly 
emphatic.” ® The use of the definite article, and its fre- 
quent repetition, proves that our Lord desired to employ 
every safeguard to prevent His words from being inter- 
preted metaphorically. If an autograph collector were to 
tell me: “ Here I have a codex of St. Thomas, to which 
he devoted much care,” I should quite naturally under- 
stand him to mean a holographic original, not a mere copy. 
Moreover, Christ speaks of His Body as “ given for you” 
(7d tmép tpav Sidduevov) and of His Blood as “shed for 
you (TO trép ipnav Erxvvvöuevov) for the forgiveness of 
sins.” Hence the Body given to the Apostles was the 
same Body that was crucified on the cross, and the 
Chalice contained the same Blood that was shed for our 
sins. 


c) We arrive at the same conclusion if we 
consider the circumstances accompanying the in- 
stitution of the Eucharist. Those who heard our 
Saviour’s words were simple uneducated fisher- 
men, whereas He was the omniscient God, who 
had a particular reason for speaking plainly on 
this occasion, because He was communicating 
His last will and testament. 


a) The Apostles were not possessed of the learned 
equipment that would have enabled them to unravel ‘a 
dark and mysterious phraseology. They were ignorant 
men, from the ranks of the people, who hung upon the 
words of their Master with childlike simplicity and un- 
questioningly accepted whatever He told them. This 

8 Apud Wiseman, The Real Presence, p. 267. 


30 THE-REAL PRESENCE 


childlike disposition had to be reckoned with by Christ. 
Can we assume that, after they had been prepared for the 
literal promise of the Eucharist, they should have under- 
stood that promise, when it actually came to be made, in 
a sense which would have involved them in the most 
absurd misunderstandings and contradictions? Our Lord, 
when He pronounced the words of institution, was on 
the eve of His passion and death. It was His last 
will and testament He was giving them, and He spoke as 
a dying father to His sorrowing children.® In such a 
solemn moment the only appropriate mode of speech was 
one which, stripped of tropes and figures, made use of the 
simplest words corresponding exactly to the meaning to 
be conveyed. 

8) It should be remembered also that Christ, being God, 
must have foreseen the tragic error into which He would 
have led His Apostles and His Church by giving them as 
His real Body and Blood something which was merely 
bread and wine. The Church has always based her Eu- 
charistic teaching and practice on the words of her 
Divine Founder. If she were in error and the adoration 
she shows to the Holy Eucharist were idolatry, the mis- 
take would have to be laid at the door of our Lord Him- 
self. Yet we are told that the interpretation of His 
words which the Church held from the beginning, is 
false, and that it required over a thousand years for the 
real meaning to be discovered by Berengarius (+ 1088) 
and John Calvin. Are we to assume that heretics and 
infidels understood our Lord correctly, while the Church, 
who has the promise of His permanent assistance, was and 
is egregiously in error? | 

To this apologetical argument may be added two others 
of a dogmatic character. 


BICHE, oan AXTIL eek, ee, 


PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 31 


(1) The Holy Eucharist is the last will and testament | 
of our Lord. 

As is plain from the words of consecration, Christ 
established the “ New Testament” (Novum Testamen- 
tum, % caw) duadyem) in His Blood. Surely, no sane man 
would employ unintelligible tropes and figures in drawing 
up his last will and testament. Jehovah spoke unequivo- 
cally when He established the Ancient Covenant: “ This 
is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made 
with you.”1° How clearly did not Jacob,** David,'? 
Tobias,'? and Mathathias }* formulate their last will and 
testament! Are we to assume that Jesus Christ, the God- 
man, was careless in this important matter? With a true 
instinct the Roman law prescribes * that the words of a 
will must be taken in their natural and literal sense. It 
would be ridiculous to interpret the term “ house ” in the 
will of a testator, not of a real edifice, but of a painting. 
Christ, according to the literal purport of His testament, 
has left us His Body and Blood as a precious legacy ; are 
we justified in interpreting this as a mere symbol? 

(2) The Holy Eucharist is a Sacrament. It was the 
will of Christ that it should be solemnly celebrated as 
such in His Church to the end of time. The Sacraments 
of the Old Law, which are so far inferior to those of the 
New, were established in unequivocal terms, and there 
never was any dispute about their meaning.** Is it pos- 
sible to assume that Christ used less care in instituting the 
Sacraments of the New Covenant? What would become 
of Baptism if it were permissible to interpret the term 


TEx ONT; S87 eit. Heb. TX, 141 Mach. II, 49 saq. 

I9 sqq. 15 Cfr. Cod. Rom. ff. De Legat., 
11 Gen. XLIX, 29 sqq. 3: 
123 Kings II, 2 sqq. 16 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra- 


33 Tob tV;)3sqq- ments, Vol. I., pp. 26 sqq. 


32 THE REAL PRESENCE 


“water” in a figurative sense? The Eucharist is no 
exception to this rule. A figurative interpretation of the 
terms “ Body” and “ Blood” would contradict the plain 
meaning of the words of institution. Rationalists have 
tried to disprove this argument by saying that a Sacra- 
ment is by its very concept a sign or symbol of something 
else. This is undeniable. But the Apostles could not 
possibly know beforehand that Christ, when He pro- 
nounced the words of institution, wished to establish a 
new Sacrament; they had to conclude it from His words 
and actions.'” It was only from His plain and unmis- 
takable utterance that they learned that He had raised, 
not bread and wine as a mere symbol of His Body and 
Blood, but His very Body and Blood under the sacra- 
mental signs of bread and wine, to the rank of a 
Sacrament,” 


2. OBJECTIONS TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETA- 
TION OF THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION ANSWERED. 
—The defenders of the figurative interpretation 
are very much at variance among themselves and 
regard the words of institution as a veritable 
enigma. 


Luther ridiculed the so-called Sacramentarians in his 
treatise Wider die Schwarmgeister, published at Nurem- 
berg in 1527. “Carlstadt,” he said, “in the sacred text 
‘This is my body,’ tortures the little word this; Zwingli 
tortures the little word 7s; Oecolampadius tortures the 
little word body... . Thus doth the devil brutally fool 

17 Cfr. Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dog- topic consult Bellarmine, De Eu- 
matische Theologie, Vol. IX, p. charistia, I, 9; N. Gihr, Die Al. 


490, Mayence 1901. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. 
18 For a fuller treatment of this I, sand ‘ed., 8 83. 


PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 33 


us.” There were no limits to the Eucharistic disputes 
in the sixteenth century. As early as 1577, Christopher 
Rasperger wrestled with two hundred different interpre- 
tations of the words of institution. This confusion was 
an inevitable consequence of the rejection of the true lit- 
eral sense of our Lord’s words. Error is a many-headed 
hydra, the truth alone is one. Cardinal Bellarmine, in his 
treatise De Eucharistia,? reduced all those different inter- 
pretations to ten groups, four of which regard the word 
hoc, two the word est, three the word corpus, and one the 
word meum.2+ Setting aside the more violent distortions 
of the literal sense, we will confine ourselves to a brief 
review of the three principal groups.”” 


a) The first group of Sacramentarians, headed 
by Zwingli, sees a figure in the copula est and 
renders the passage: “This signifies (est = 
significat ) my Body.” | 


Many Scriptural texts have been quoted in support of 
this interpretation. Here are a few chosen at random. 
Gen. XLI, 26: “ The seven beautiful kine . . . are seven 
years of plenty.” Dan. VII, 17: “ These four great 
beasts are four kingdoms .. .” Matth. XIII, 38: “ The 
field is the world; and the good seed are the children of 
the kingdom; and the cockle are the children of the 
wacked one: | Galı. lV, 24: oor! thesen, [Sara land 
Agar] are the two testaments.” Apoc. I, 20: “The seven 
candlesticks are the seven churches.” 


19 Chr. Rasperger, Ducentae Ver- 22 On the confusion created by the 
borum:. ‘Hoc est corpus meum, etc.’ figurative interpretation of the words 
Interpretationes, Ingolstadt 1577. of institution, cfr. Luthardt (Lu- 

20 De Euch., 1, 8. theran), Kompendium der Dog- 


21 This last-mentioned interpreta- matık, pp. 355 SQ4. Leipzig 1900. 
tion, suggested by Luther, was not 
meant seriously. N 


34 THE REAL PRESENCE 


A favorite text with this school of interpreters is ı Cor. 
X, 4: “And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and 
they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and 
the rock was [1. e. symbolized] Christ).” This interpre- 
tation is still upheld by some Rationalists. Thus Schmie- 
del says that “ éoré indubitably means to signify; ” Henrici 
declares that it “expresses the relation of identity in a 
metaphorical connexion;” Weiss, that it is “the copula 
in a symbolic relation.” 


Refutation of This Theory.—The Rationalist 
interpretation just explained is contrary to the 
principles of logic. 


Most logicians deny that the verb “to be” (eva, esse) 
can ever be used in the metaphorical sense of “ to signify ” 
or “to represent.” But even waiving this question, it is 
a fundamental truth of the science of correct reasoning 
that propositions generally are divided into two classes: 
those that denominate a thing as it is in itself Vera 
“ Man is a rational being ”), and those that designate an 
object as a sign of something else (e. g., “ This picture is 
my father”). There are three criteria for ascertaining 
whether a speaker intends a proposition to be taken in the 
latter sense: (a) the figurative meaning may be obvious 
from the nature of the subject (ex subiectä materia) or 
from common usage (ex usu linguae), as explained 
above; (b) when one complete substance is predicated of 
another complete substance, there can be no logical rela- 
tion of identity between the two, but only of similarity, 
that is to say, the one is an image, sign, or symbol of the 
other; (c) if there has been a previous agreement between 
speaker and hearer, author and reader, objects in them- 
selves inappropriate to serve the purpose, may be used as 


PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 35 


signs of other objects. Where none of these criteria 
applies, we must follow the common-sense rule and in- 
terpret literally. | 

Are any of these criteria applicable to the words by 
which Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist? 

Not the first, for neither in the nature of the case nor 
from the usages of common parlance can bread be a 
symbol of the human body or wine a symbol of human 
blood. 

Not the second, for Christ did not predicate one com- 

plete substance of another complete substance. He did 
not say: “This bread is my body,” but indefinitely: 
“ This (rovro, not otros, scil. 6 apros) is my body.” 

Not the third criterion, because there was no previous 
agreement as to an arbitrary symbolism, but rather the 
contrary.” The Scriptural texts brought forward by 
Zwingli and his followers are not even grammatically ex- 
act parallels to the words of institution; for all of them 
have for their subject a substantive noun, whereas in the 
words of institution the subject is a demonstrative adverb 
—“ hoc.” The pronoun haec (atrat) in Gal. IV, 24, re- 
fers so plainly to the two persons previously mentioned 
(Sara and Agar) that St. Paul’s explanatory remark, 
“ These things are said by an allegory,’ really seems 
superfluous. 

The only text that would appear to offer any serious 
difficulty is 1 Cor. X, 4: “ Petra autem erat Christus — 
And the rock was [signified] Christ.” Is this meant as 
a parallel to the words of institution? If the subject 
“rock” be taken in its material sense, the metaphor is 
quite apparent, and would be unmistakable even if the 
Apostle had not added: “ Now these things were done 


23 V. supra, pp. 27 sq. 


36 THE REAL PRESENCE 


in a figure of us.”®* But sundry theologians 2° prefer to 
take the word “ rock” in an allegorical sense, because the 
Apostle, a little farther up, speaks of Christ as “the 
spiritual rock ” ?° which invisibly accompanied the Israel- 
ites on their journeys and supplied them with a spiritual 
fountain of water. According to this explanation Christ 
did not merely signify, but was, the spiritual rock, and 
hence the copula retains its proper meaning, “to be.” 27 

In certain Anglican circles it was formerly the custom 
to appeal to the supposed poverty of the Aramaic tongue, 
which was spoken by Christ in conversing with His 
Apostles. It was maintained that this language had no 
word corresponding to the concept “ signify.” Yet, even 
prescinding from the fact that in Aramaic the copula est 
is usually omitted, and that such an omission rather argues 
for its strict meaning “to be,” Cardinal Wiseman suc- 
ceeded in producing no less than forty Syriac expressions 
conveying the meaning of “ to signify,” and thus effectu- 
ally exploded the myth of the limited vocabulary of the 
Semitic tongue.?® 

The Syrian Bishop Maruthas, a contemporary and 
friend of St. John Chrysostom, refuted the Zwinglians in 
advance as it were when he wrote: “For Christ called 
this [i. e. His Body] not a type or figure, but [He said]: 
This is truly my Body and my Blood.” 29 

It should be noted that the question here at issue must 
be decided not by the unknown Aramaic text of our 


241 Cor. X, 6: “ Haec autem in 187 sqq., Münster 1903; McRory, 


figura facta sunt nostri.” The Epistles of St. Paul to the 

25 Notably Franzelin (De Eu- Corinthians, pp. 136 sqq., Dublin 
charistia, p. 63). 1915. 

261 Cor. X, 4: “ Bibebant autem 28 Cfr. Wiseman, Horae Syriacae, 
de spiritali, consequente eos, petra; pp. 3-73, Rome 1828; Drach, In- 
petra autem erat Christus.” scription Hébraique, and ed., p. 33. 

27 Cfr. Al. Schäfer, Erklärung der 29 Apud <Assemani, Bibliotheca 


beiden Briefe an die Korinther, pp. Orient., Vol. I, p. 180. 


PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 37 


Lord’s discourse (which W. Berning has hypothetically 
reconstructed), but by the Greek text, which everywhere 
has &ori and not onpaive.°® 


b) A second group of Sacramentarians, fol- 
lowing the lead of Oecolampadius, shifted the 
diligently sought-for metaphor to the concept 
contained in the predicate corpus, giving to the 
latter the sense of “signum corporis,’ so that the 
words of institution would have to be rendered: 
“This is a sign [symbol, image, type] of my 
Body.” 


This absurd theory essentially coincides with the 
Zwinglian interpretation. Its latest exponent, Durand,** 
tries to show that the Christian Church has always un- 
derstood the words of institution as meaning: “ This 
[bread] is the symbol of my Body.” 


Refutation of This Theory.—This conten- 
tion is disproved by the fact that in all languages 
the expression “body” designates a person’s nat- 
ural body, not a mere sign or symbol thereof. 


True it is that the Scriptural words “ Body of Christ” 
are sometimes. figuratively used in the meaning of 
“Church” (corpus Christi mysticum), but this figure is 
always easily discernible as such from the text or con- 
text. Cfr. Col. I, 24: “I make up in my flesh what is 
lacking to the sufferings of Christ on behalf of his body, 

30 The Scriptural proof of the also Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., 
Real Presence is copiously developed Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 265 sqq. 


by Card. Wiseman -in his famous 31 Das Problem der Eucharistie 
Lectures on The Real Presence; see und seine Lösung, Berlin 1898. 


38 THE REAL’ PRESENCE 


which is the church.” This mystical sense, however, 
cannot be intended in the words of institution, for 
the simple reason that Christ did not give the Apostles His 
Church to eat, but His Body, which “ Body,” by reason 
of a real and logical association, cannot be separated from 
His “ Blood,” and hence is all the less susceptible of a 
figurative use. Since our Divine Saviour in all likelihood 
spoke Aramaic, it is probable that the words in their 
original form were #% mM —“ Hoc [est] corpus meum.” 


The Aramaic word #33 (Hebrew nai) has the second- 


ary meaning of substantia, realitas, persona. Were we to 
take the term in this secondary sense in the above-quoted 
passage, we should get: “ This [is] my substance or 
person,” which would express the Real Presence even 
more clearly. But this interpretation is inadmissible for 
the simple reason that the parallel phrase “ This is my 
blood” cannot be treated in the same way. The case 
would be different if the reading were: “This is the 
bread of my Body, the wine of my Blood.” 

Some heretics evolve the figurative sense from the rela- 
tion of the pronoun hoc to the predicate corpus meum, 
saying: “ That which is bread and remains bread, can- 
not be at the same time the true Body of Christ, but at 
most an image thereof.” This altogether arbitrary con- 
struction is disproved by the text itself, which does not 
say: “This bread is (and remains) my Body,” but in- 
definitely: “Totré [not obros 6 dptos] Eorı TO oopd pov,?? 
1. e., that which I give you is my Body, and consequently 
no longer bread.” Our interpretation is confirmed by St. 
Luke, who says: “ This is the chalice, the new testament 
in my blood, which [chalice] shall be shed for Yous ce 
In other words: the contents of the chalice is my Blood, 


32 Matth. XXVI, 26. 83 Luke XXII, 20. 


PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 39 


which shall be shed for you. Consequently, what the 
Apostles received in the chalice was not wine, but really 
and truly the Blood of Christ. 

To prove that the contents of the chalice were mere. 
wine, Protestants have had recourse to the text of St. 
Matthew, where it is related that our Lord, after the com- 
pletion of the Last Supper, declared: “I will not drink 
henceforth of this fruit of the vine.” ®* St. Luke, who is 
chronologically more exact, places these words before the 
institution of the Eucharist.2° Note, also, that the true 
Blood of Christ may rightly still be called (consecrated ) 
wine, because the Blood is partaken of after the manner 
in which wine is drunk, and also because it continues to 
exist under the outward appearance of wine. For this 
reason St. Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, 
calls the Body of Christ “bread ’’— emphatically: rov 
äprov rovrov, “this (peculiar) bread” ®— because the 
Body of Christ is eaten like bread *’ and retains the out- 
ward appearance of bread after the consecration. 


c) There are certain Scriptural texts which 
are believed to be so near an approach to a paral- 
lel with the words of institution that they have 
been termed sacramental expressions (locutiones 
sacramentales). 


The two principal texts of this kind are Gen. XVII, 10: 
“Hoc [i. e. circumcisio] est pactum meum | = signum 
pacts mei], and Ex. XII, 11: “ [Agnus paschalis| est 
enim phase [1. e. transitus| Domini.” It was chiefly by a 
clever manipulation of the latter that Zwingli succeeded 

PA EMH Rec cas ke Non)! bid Luka SOWED) reed 


bam amodo de hoc genimine vitis S61 Con. XI, 20% 
(rov yevjuaros THs dumédov).” SNC fey yi Cor. Xrio, 


40 THE REAL PRESENCE 


in robbing the people of Zurich of their Catholic faith.?8 


Refutation of This Theory.—From the exeget- 
ical point of view the texts just quoted can hardly 
be regarded as parallels to the words of institu- 
tion; to call them “sacramental expressions” is 
foolish. 


No parallelism can be discerned between the phrases 
employed by those Old Testament writers and the words 
of institution: no real parallelism, because there is ques- 
tion of entirely different things; no verbal parallelism, 
since in both Gen. XVII, 10 and Ex. XII, 11 the sub- 
ject is a ceremony (circumcision in the first, the rite of 
the paschal lamb in the second), while the predicate in- 
volves a mere abstraction (Covenant, Passover of the 
Lord). 

A much weightier consideration is this, that on 
closer investigation the copula est will be found to retain — 
its proper -meaning of “is” rather than “ signifies.” 
Moses by divine command established the Covenant by 
sprinkling the Israelites with sacrificial blood, saying: © 
“ This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath 
made with you.” *® St. Paul, after quoting these words 
in his Epistle to the Hebrews, says that the New Cove- ° 
nant was established in a similar manner by the Blood 
of Christ,“ and our Lord Himself expressly declares: 
“ This is my blood of the New Testament.” 44 Here we 
have both a verbal and a real parallelism between the 
two Testaments, which forces us to conclude: As the Old 


88 On a third ‘‘sacramental ex- guis foederis, quod pepigit Dominus 


pression” (1 Cor. X, 4: “ Petra vobiscum.” The Septuagint has: 
autem erat Christus”), see supra, iSov 7d alua THs ÖLahhkns. 
PP. 35 sq. 40 Cfr,; Heb. IX} ri “saa: 


39 Ex. XXIV, 8: “ Hic est san- 41 Matth. XXVI, 28. 


PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 41 


Testament was established by the blood of calves, so the 
New Testament was established by the sacrificial Blood 
of Jesus Christ. 

A closer analysis of the texts under consideration 
shows that the copula in every case retains its proper 
meaning and cannot be rendered by “ signifies.” The 
command regarding circumcision reads as follows in the 
original: "Hoc est pactum meum...: circumcidt 
vobis omnem masculum,” that is to say, the rite 
of circumcision is the content or object of the divine 
command, not merely’a sign or symbol thereof. This 
last-mentioned function is added later. Gen. XVII, 11: 
“And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, 
that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and 
you.” 

The second text cited by the Sacramentarians reads as 
follows: “Sic autem comedetis illum |i. e. agnum]. 
Renes vestros accingetis, etc... . Est enim phase [1. e. 
transitus] Domini.” #2 This means that the entire rite 
thus described, and not merely the paschal lamb, is (not 
signifies) the Feast of the Passover.“ 


3. INCIDENTAL ProBLeMs.—For a better un- 
derstanding of the words of institution it is well 
to examine two incidental problems, vı2.: 


42 Gen. XVII, 10, 

43 Ex. XII, 11. 

44 Cfr. W. Koch, Die neutesta- 
mentlichen Abendmahlsberichte und 
die neueste Abendmahlforschung, in 
the Theol. Quartalschrift, of Tubin- 
gen, 1905, pp. 230 sqq.; G. Rauschen, 
Eucharistie und Bussakrament in 
den ersten sechs Jahrhunderten der 
Kirche, 2nd ed., pp. 38 saq., Frei- 
burg ıgıo (English tr., Eucharist 


and Penance in the First Six Cen- 
turies of the Church, St. Louis 1913); 
A. Ebrard, Das Dogma vom hl. 
Abendmahl und seine Geschichte, 2 
vols., Frankfort on the Main 1845-6; _ 
J. Hoffmann, Das Abendmahl im 
Urchristentum, Berlin 1903; R. See- 
berg, Das Abendmahl im Neuen 
Testament, Berlin 1905. (The last 
three authors are Protestants.) 


42 THE REAL PRESENCE 


(a) Are the words of institution to be re- 
garded as a theoretical or as a practical proposi- 
tion? and 

(b) What is the meaning of the pronoun hoc? 


a) A theoretical proposition merely affırms, whereas 
a practical proposition effects the identity of subject and 
predicate. “ This is water,” e. g., is a theoretical propo- 
sition. “ You are a lieutenant,” if pronounced by a gen- 
eral in promoting a soldier, is a practical proposition. 
It was obviously such a practical proposition that Christ 
enunciated when He said, “ This is my body;” for what 
was merely bread when He began to speak, had been 
changed into His sacred Body when He was through 
speaking. Thus the words of institution are at the same 
time words of consecration. 

The question has been raised whether our Lord, with- 
out destroying the practical effect of His words, could 
have said: “ This bread is my Body.” Oswald thinks 
that “If Christ had said ‘ This bread is my Body,’ the 
laws of logic would require that either the subject or the 
predicate be modified, 7. e., taken.in a sense other than 
the natural sense,” and adds: “ Fortunately,’ Christ did 
not speak thus.” 4 

It is quite true that had Christ employed the phrase 
mentioned, He would have made it difficult, nay impos- 
sible, for us to interpret His words literally, because, as 
we have seen, to predicate one complete substance of 


another complete substance means to speak figuratively. 


The question may be put somewhat differently as fol- 
lows: Could Christ have silently used the phrase: 


45 Die dogmatische Lehre von den hi. Sakramenten, Vol. I, 5th ed, 
P. 335. 


PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 43 


“This bread is my body” in consecrating the sacred 
species? Franzelin * thinks He could. He says that 
while the universal proposition “ Bread (in general) 
is my body ” would have no consecratory power, because 
no objective identity is conceivable between bread as 
such and the Body of Christ, the particular proposition 
“This bread is my body” is quite as susceptible of be- 
ing endowed with such power as were the words of 
Aaron before Pharaoh, “ These rods be serpents,” or 
the Saviour’s own silent command at Cana, “ This 
water shall be (is) wine.” 

b) Assuming that the words of institution constitute 
a practical proposition, the Scholastics raised the inter- 
esting logical problem: What does the pronoun hoc 
“ suppose,” 4? i. e., for what precisely does it stand? 

The majority of Catholic theologians hold with St. 
Thomas * that hoc stands for “ substance in general” 
(substantia in communi), without quality, that is, with- 
out a determinate form. St. Bonaventure says * that it 
stands for “the bread in course of conversion into the 
Body of Christ,” the terminus a quo of consecration. 
Scotus maintains that it stands for “the bread already 
consecrated,” 7. e. the Body of Christ, which is the ter- 
minus ad quem of consecration.°° Franzelin°* shows 
that these three opinions can easily be combined by dis- 
tinguishing between the “ signification”? and the “ dem- 
onstration” of the pronoun. Hoc invariably signifies 
a thing here and now present, without determining its 


46 De Eucharistia, 4th ed., Rome 49 Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 8, 
1887. Dr zRartı) adie ke 

47 On the “ supposition ” of terms, 50 This view is enthusiastically de- 
see Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. fended by Maldonatus, Comment. in 
197. sql % Matth., 26, 26. 

48 Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 78, 51 De Eucharistia, 4th ed., thes. 6, 


art. 5. Rome 1887. 


44 THE REAL PRESENCE 


nature; but it “demonstrates” that thing only in the 
state in which it actually exists at the time the proposi- 
tion is uttered. Applying this rule to the words of insti- 
tution, we find that St. Thomas is right in saying that hoc 
can only signify “ substance in general,” without a deter- 
minate form; that St. Bonaventure is right in asserting 
that hoc, at the beginning of the sentence, “ demon: 
strates” merely bread, and that Scotus contradicts 
neither the one nor the other of these eminent writers 
when he claims that hoc, considered at the end of the 
sentence, 1. e. when the sentence is completed, “ dem- . 
onstrates ” the Body of Christ. 

Of less importance is the grammatical question whether _ 
the pronoun hoc in the words of institution must be taken 
substantively or adjectively. As all the predicates in the 
Greek text (cdpa, alna, rornpiv) are of the neuter gen- 
der, this question cannot be definitively answered. Cor- 
pus in Latin being also neuter, while sanguis and calix 
are masculine, the Vulgate has translated rotro adjec- 
tively. There is no essential difference between the two 
versions. 


SEC EION' 2 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 


More conclusively perhaps than any other 
dogma of the Catholic faith can the Real Presence 
of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be demonstrated 
from Tradition. 

The Popes prove this sublime truth by clearly 
defining it against various heretics; the Fathers 
unanimously bear witness to it; the Church at 
large held it in uninterrupted possession from the 
Apostolic age down to the eleventh century. 


ARTICLE 1 


HERETICAL ERRORS VS. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH 


It is a remarkable fact that, aside possibly from Doce- 
tism,! no heresy denying the Real Presence was ever able 
to take root in the primitive Church. When Berengarius 
of Tours attacked this dogma, in the eleventh century, 
the Church at once condemned the innovation and took 
determined means to suppress it. The widely divergent 
errors of the Protestant Reformers on this subject were 
vigorously rejected by the Council of Trent. 


1. THE: THREE GREAT EUCHARISTIC CONTRO- 
VERSIES.—Church history records three great 
1 Cfr. St. Ignatius, Ep. ad Smyrn., c. 7, 1 (ed. Funk, I, 241). 
45 


46 THE REAL \PRESENGE 


Eucharistic controversies. The first was begun 
by Paschasius Radbertus, in the ninth century; ? 
the second, by Berengarius of Tours, in the 
eleventh; the third, by the Protestant Reformers. 

a) The controversy of the ninth century left 
the dogmatic teaching of the Church intact and 
concerned itself solely with a philosophical ques- 
tion. 


St. Paschasius Radbertus, abbot of the Benedictine 
monastery of Corbie,? in a treatise De Corpore et San- 
guine Domini, published in 831, affirmed the identity of 
the Eucharistic Body of Christ with the natural Body He 
had on earth and now has in Heaven. In defend- 
ing this view it seems Radbertus neglected the true 
though only accidental distinction between the sacra- 
mental and the natural condition of our Saviour’s Body. 
Hence Ratramnus, Rhabanus Maurus, and other con- 
temporary theologians were justified in censuring the 
numerical identity asserted by Radbertus as a “ novel 
and unheard-of” doctrine, and insisting on the dis- 
tinction just mentioned. The Body of Christ in the 
Holy Eucharist, they declared, while identical with His 
natural Body naturaliter sew secundum substantiam, is 
not identical with it specialiter seu secundum speciem 
(= statum).* In defending his position Paschasius was 


2 This first controversy scarcely 
extended beyond the limits of a 
Scholastic altercation. Harnack 
(Dogmengeschichte, Vol. III, sth 
ed., pp. 278 sqq., Freiburg 1896) un- 
duly exaggerates its importance. 

3 See a sketch of his life in the 
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XI, p. 
518. His treatise De Corpore et 


Sanguine Domini can be found in 
Marténe, Vet. Script. et Monum. 
Ampl.) Collectio, 1 IX, and in 
Mignes (Pack EX 

4 Cfr. Rhabanus Maurus, Ep. 3 ad 
Egilem (Migne, P.'L., CXI, 1513): 
“ Manifestissime cognoscetis, non 
quidem — quod absit — naturaliter, 
sed specialiter alind esse corpus 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 47 


able to quote St. Chrysostom, who “in teaching the Real 
Presence employed precisely the same language without 
ever having been suspected of theological inaccuracy. 
Neither St. Chrysostom nor St. Paschasius dreamed of 
asserting that the Body of Christ was nailed to the Cross 
in its sacramental state, 7. e. in the form of a host, and 
Heriger, Ratherius, and other opponents of the Ab- 
bot of Corbie were plainly beating the air when they 
employed their learning to refute his alleged assertion 
that the sacramental species are identical with the Body 
of Christ. Lanfranc, writing in the eleventh century, 
effectively disposes of the matter thus: “It can truly 
be said that we receive the very Body which was taken 
from the Virgin, and yet not the same. It is the same 
in essence and property of trye nature; but it is 
not the same if you regard the species of bread and 
wine.» 


b) The first occasion for an official procedure 
on the part of the Church arose when Berengarius 
of Tours (-+ 1088), influenced by the writings of 
Scotus Eriugena,° formally rejected both the doc- 


Domini, quod ex substantia panis et Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II, 4th ed., 
vini pro mundi vita quotidie per pp. 159 sqq., Freiburg 1904. A 
Spiritum Sanctum consecratur... thorough vindication of St. Pa- 
et aliud specialiter esse corpus schasius was made by Gerbert, after- 


Christi, quod natum est de Maria 
virgine, in quod illud transfertur.” 

5 Adv. Berengar., c. 18: “Vere 
posse dici et ipsum corpus, quod de 
Virgine sumptum est, nos sumere; 
et tamen non ipsum. Ipsum quidem 
quantum ad essentiam veraeque 
naturae proprietatem; non ipsum 
autem, st spectes panis vinique spe- 
cies.’ Cfr. Bach, Dogmengeschichte 
des Mittelalters, Vol. I, pp. 156 sqq., 
Vienna 1873; J. Hergenröther, 


wards Pope Sylvester II (+ 1003), 
in a work bearing the same title, 
De Corpore et Sanguine Domini. 
C£r. Ernst, Die Lehre des Paschasius 
Radbertus von der Eucharistie, Frei- 
burg 1896; Choisy, Paschase Rad- 
bert, Geneva 1880. 

6 Scotus Eriugena camposed his 
treatise De Corpore et Sanguine 
Domini about the year 860; the text 
has been lost and no authentic in- 
formation has come down to us re- 


48 THE REAL Loe ECE 


trine of the Real Presence and that of Transub- 
stantiation.” | 


In his treatise De Sacra Coena, discovered by Lessing 
in 1774 and made public by Vischer in 1834, Berengarius 
expressly asserts: “If it is said, ‘The bread which is 
placed upon the altar after the consecration is the body 
of Christ,’ this is just as much a figure of speech as if 
it is said, “Christ is a lion, a lamb, the main corner- 
stone. ”® This heretical teaching gave great scandal and 
was vigorously combatted by Durandus of Troarne, 
Guitmund, Lanfranc, Alger of Liége, and other learned 
theologians.? 


[} 


c) The third and most momentous Eucharistic 
controversy was that opened by the Protestant 
Reformers in the first half of the sixteenth cen- 
tury. In the main there were three schools: the 
Lutheran, the Zwinglian, and the Calvinist. 

a) Luther seems at first to have clung to the 
traditional Catholic doctrine, though it did not 


garding it—-On John Scotus Eriu- and theologians.” Perhaps the diffi- 
gena (“ Eriugena” means “a native culty for him was “in the mode 
of Ireland’’), see W. Turner in the rather than in the fact; ... yet his 
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, pp. exposition of [the Real Presence], 


519 sqq.; Gardner, Studies in John 
the Scot, London 1900. 

7V. infra, Ch. III, Sect. 2. 

8“ Non minus tropicä oratione 
dicitur: Panis, qui ponitur in altari, 
post consecrationem est corpus 
Christi, quam dicitur: Christus est 
leo, agnus, summus lapis angularis.” 
— Berengarius certainly denied 
Transubstantiation. As to his teach- 
ing on the Real Presence, which is 
rather obscure, “there is much di- 
vergence of opinion among historians 


together with his principles of philo- 
sophy, endanger the fact itself of the 
Real Presence and sound very much 
like a negative of it.’ (G. M. Sau- 
vage in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 
Vol. II, p. 488). 

9 Their writings are reproduced 
by Hurter in his Sanctorum Patrum 
Opuscula Selecta, Series I, vols. 23, 
38, 39. Cfr. J. Schnitzer, Berengar 
von Tours, end eds .pp. 133 -.saq., 
Stuttgart 1892. 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 49 


tally with his pet theory of justification by faith 
alone. 


In his pamphlet On the Babylonian Captivity he 
viciously attacked the Mass and denied Transubstantia- 
tion, without, however, questioning the Real Presence. 
To save the latter after having rejected the former, he 
found himself constrained to maintain that the substance 
of bread and the Body of Christ exist together in the 
Eucharist. This theory is called. Consubstantiation. It 
was later brought into a system by the orthodox Lutheran 
theologians and reduced to the technical formula: 
“ Praesens in, cum et sub pane.” ?° Luther, however, un- 
dermined it when, urged on by Melanchthon and by his 
own ardent desire to abolish the “ Deus in pyxide” and 
do away with Eucharistic adorations and’ theophoric pro- 
cessions, he declared in his scurrilous pamphlet “ Von der 
Winkelmesse” (A.D. 1533), that the Body of Christ is 
present in the Eucharist only at the moment of its re- 
ception in holy Communion (in usu, non ante vel post 
usum). This theory, carried to its logical conclusion, had 
to result in a denial of the dogma of the Real Presence. 
Melanchthon, who leaned to Calvinism, did not find it 
difficult to eliminate from the Augsburg Confession the 
orthodox proposition: “The Body and Blood of the 
Lord are truly present under the form of bread and wine,” 
and to substitute for it the ambiguous phrase: “ In the 
Lord’s Supper, the Body and Blood of Christ is truly ex- 
hibited with the bread and the wine,” 44 which was accept- 
able to the Calvinists. The Lutheran and the Calvinistic 

10 For further information on this lanchthon substituted: “In coena 
point, v. infra. pp. 113, 117. Domini cum pane et vino corpus et 

11 Art. ro originally read: “ Sub sanguis Christi vere exhibetur.”’ 


specie panis et vini corpus et sanguis The various Protestant confessional 
Domini vere adsunt.” For this Me- statements on the “ Lord’s Supper ” 


50 THE REAL PRESENCE 


views continued to exist side by side, until King Frederick 
William III amalgamated the two sects in the so-called 
“ Evangelische Landeskirche,” the national Church of 
Prussia, which has since degenerated into almost com- 
plete infidelity. The original Lutheran teaching is to- 
day upheld only by a small coterie of “orthodox” 
Lutherans in Germany and the United States.” 


6) Luther’s conception of the Eucharist was 
strongly opposed by Hulderic Zwingli of Zurich, 
who was supported by Carlstadt and Butzer, and 
especially by Oecolampadius. 


Zwingli, as stated above, discovered a figure or trope 
in the copula est and rendered it: “This sigmfes my 
body,” thereby reducing the Eucharist to an empty sym- 
bol.!? Carlstadt claimed that when our Lord uttered the 
words “ This is my body,’ He pointed to Himself.** 
Zwingli later on secured influential allies in the Armin- 
ians, the Mennonites, the Socinians, and the Anglicans,” 
and even to-day the Rationalistic conception of the Lord’s 
Supper does not differ substantially from that of the 
Zwinglians. 


will be found in the New Schaff- 
Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge, Vol. VII, pp. 35 sa. 

12 Cfr. Herzog-Hauck, Realenzy- 
klopädie für prot. Theologie, Vol. 
I, 3rd ed., pp. 65 sqq. (New Schaff- 
Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge, Vol. VII, p. 37); J. T. 
Miller, Die symbolischen Biicher der 
evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, 6th 
ed., Gütersloh 1886. 


13 V. supra, Sect. 1, Art. 2, No. 2. 


Zwingli’s teaching is succinctly stated 
in that writer’s Opera, Vol. III, pp. 
240 sqq., Zurich 1832. 


14 For Luther’s opinion of Carl- 
stadt v. De Wette, Luth. Epist., II, 
576 sqq. On the controversy be- 
tween Luther and Zwingli regarding 
the Eucharist see Hergenrother, 
Kirchengeschichte, Vol. III, 4th ed., 
pp. 72 sqq., Freiburg 1909. 

15 See the New Schaff-Herzog En- 
cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 
Volt Vl Dp. 23582 Onemore recent 
Protestant theories see W. Berning, 
Die Einsetzung der hl. Eucharistie 
in ihrer ursprünglichen Form, pp. I 
sqq., Munster 1901. 


_—— 


ee ee 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 51 


y) In the meantime Calvin, at Geneva, was 
seeking to bring about a compromise between the 
extremes of the Lutheran literal and the Zwing- 
lian figurative interpretation of our Lord’s 
words, by suggesting instead of the substantial 
presence in one case or the merely symbolical 
presence in the other, a certain mean or “ dyna- 
mic’ presence. 


This dynamic presence of Christ he explained as fol- 
lows: At the moment of reception, the efficacy of 
Christ’s Body and Blood, though that Body and Blood 
are not really present (secundum substantiam), is com- 
municated from Heaven to the souls of the predestined 
(secundum virtutem) and spiritually nourishes them.1% 
Owing to Melanchthon’s dishonest double-dealing, this 
intermediary position of Calvin made a strong impression 
in Lutheran circles, and it was only when the Formula of 
Concord was framed, in 1577, that the “ crypto-Calvinistic 
venom” was successfully expelled from the body of 
Lutheran doctrine.!7 


2. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.—It was 
not until the time of Berengarius that the Euchar- 
istic dispute trenched on orthodoxy, thus com- 


16 Cfr. Calvin, Instit., IV. edge, Vol. VII, p. 35). On modern 


17 Calvin’s views have been ulti- 
mately adopted by the great ma- 
jority of the so-called “ Reformed ” 
churches. Loofs says there are “ in- 
finite gradations between the strict 
Calvinistic belief and the ration- 
alyzing of the Zwinglian view into 
a mere observance in commemoration 
of Christ.” (New Schaff-Herzog 
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowl- 


Calvinism cfr. A. Ebrard, Das ein- 
hellige Bekenntnis der reformierten 
Kirche aller Linder, Barmen 1887; 
E.. F. K. Müller, Die Bekenntnis- 
schriften der reformierten Kirche, 
Leipzig 1903.—On the whole sub- 
ject of this subdivision see Winer- 
Ewald, Komparative Darstellung des 
Lehrbegriffes der verschiedenen 
christlichen Kirchenparteien, n. 


52 Oe DIEARBALKPRESENGCE 


pelling the Church to define her belief in the Real 
Presence. 


a) Berengarius’ view, together with Eriugena’s trea- 
tise De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, to which he had 
appealed in support of his teaching,’* were condemned 
by councils held in Vercelli (1050), Paris (about 1050), 
and Rome (1059). It was not until he had subscribed 
to an explicit profession of faith, at another council held 
in Rome, A. D. 1079, under the presidency of Gregory 
VII, that, Berengarius gave up his heresy. He died 
reconciled to the Church. The quarrel concerning his 
Eucharistic teaching lasted altogether some thirty years. 
The profession of faith to which Berengarius was com- 
pelled to subscribe emphasized the doctrine of Transub- 
stantiation, which virtually includes that of the Real 
Presence.?® Unlike the heresy of the Protestant Re- 
formers, that of Berengarius never became popular.”° 


b) The.Council of Trent met the widely diver- 
gent errors of the Protestant Reformers by 


XVI, 4th ed., Leipzig 1882; Mohler, 
Symbolism, § 35, § 56, and § 68; 
J. B. Rohm, Konfessionelle Lehrge- 
gensätze, Vol. IV, ‘pp... 73. saa., 
Hildesheim 1888. 

18It is a disputed question 
whether the treatise De Corpore et 
Sanguine Domini attributed to 
Ratramnus is identical with that of 
Scotus Eriugena. Cfr. on this point, 
Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogmatık, Vol. 
IV,2, 561, Freiburg 1901, 

19 “ Ego Berengarius corde credo et 
ore confiteor, panem et vinum, quae 
ponuntur in altari, per mysterium 
sacrae orationis et verba nostri Re- 
demptoris substantialiter converti in 
veram et propriam ac vivificatricem 


carnem et sanguinem lesu Christi 
Domini nostri et post consecrationem 
esse verum Christi corpus, quod 
natum est de Virgine et quod pro 
salute mundi oblatum in cruce pe- 
pendit et quod sedet ad detteram 
Patris, et verum sanguinem Christi, 
qui de latere eius effusus est, non 


tantum per signum et virtutem sacra- 


menti, sed in proprietate naturae et 
veritate substantiae. ...” (Den- 
zinger-Bannwart, n. 355). 

20 On the conciliary proceedings 
in the case of Berengarius see 
Mansi, Collect. Concil., Vol. XIX, 
pp- 757 Sqq., 837 sqq., 897 sqq.; Vol. 
XX, pp. 523 sqq. 


a eae 


en 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 53 


defining the Catholic teaching on the subject. 
The XIIIth Session is devoted entirely to the 
Holy Eucharist, and no Catholic can peruse its 
decrees and canons without being deeply moved. 
The Council begins with a forthright profession 
of faith in the Real Presence: “In the first place 
the holy Synod teaches and openly and simply 
professes that, in the august Sacrament of the 
Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the 
bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God 
and man, is truly, really, and substantially con- 
tained under the species of those sensible 
things.” ** Calling upon-Tradition as a witness, 
the Council points to the “proper and most mani- 
fest meaning” of the divine words of institution,?? 
and declares it “a most shameful crime” that 
these plain words should be “wrested by certain 
contentious and wicked men to fictitious and 


imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the Flesh 


and Blood of Christ is denied, against the univer- 
sal sense of the Church.” 7? The three adverbs 
“truly, really, and substantially’ were not arbi- 


21 Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 
1: “Principio docet S. Synodus et 
aperte ac simpliciter profitetur, in 
almo sanctae Eucharistiae sacra- 


23° Propriam illam et 
simam significationem.” 

23 Ibid.: “-Indignissimum sane 
flagitium est, ea [verba] a quibusdam 


apertis- 


mento post panis et vini consecra- 
tionem Dominum nostrum lesum 
Christum, verum Deum atque ho- 
minem, vere, realiter ac substan- 
tialiter sub specie illarum rerum 
sensibilium contineri.” (Denzinger- 
Bannwart, n. 874). 


contentiosis et pravis hominibus ad 
fictitios et imaginarios tropos, quibus 
veritas carnis et sanguinis Christi 
negatur, contra universum Ecclesiae 
sensum detorqueri.” 


54 THE REAL PRESENCE 


trarily chosen, but with a view to oppose the three 
fictitious interpretations of the Reformers, al- 
ready mentioned. The word “vere,” 1. e. non 
significative tantum, was directed against the 
theory of Zwingli; “realiter,” 1. e. non figurative, 
against the error of Oecolampadius ; “substantiali- 
ter,” 1. e. non virtualiter tantum, against Calvin's 
contention of a purely “dynamic” presence. The 
teaching thus positively set forth 1s once more 
antithetically repeated in the First Canon of the 
same Session: “If anyone denieth that, in the 
Sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, are con- 
tained truly, really, and substantially the Body 
and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the 
whole Christ, but saith that He is only therein as 
inva’ sign, or in figure. op virtue, let him ibe 
anathenma, 47 

This teaching of Trent has ever been and still 
is the unwavering belief of the whole of Catholic 
Christendom.”° 


24 Sess. XIII, can. 1: “Si quis  virtute, anathema sit.” (Denzinger- 


negaverit, in ss. Eucharistiae sacra- . 


mento contineri vere, realiter et 
substantialiter corpus et sanguinem 
una cum anima et divinitate Domini 
nostri Iesu Christi ac proinde totum 
Christum, sed dixerit tantummodo 
esse in eo ut in signo vel figura aut 


Bannwart, n. 883). 

25 A complete collection of all 
ecclesiastical definitions on the sub- 
ject of the Eucharist will be found in 
Scheeben-Atzberger’s Dogmatik, Vol. 
IV, 2, pp. 561 sqq., Freiburg 1901. 


u 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 55 


ARTICLE, 2 


THE TEACHING OF THE FATHERS 


The Catholic teaching on the Holy Eucharist can be 
abundantly proved from the Fathers. In order not to 
exceed the limits of this treatise we shall have to confine 
ourselves to the first five centuries. It is these early 
Fathers whom Calvin invoked in favor of his “ dynamic ” 
theory. 

The Patristic proofs for our dogma may be divided 
into direct! and indirect testimonies.? Almost all extant 
Patristic passages bearing on the Real Presence are col- 
lected in the great five-volume work, La Perpetuité de la 
. Foi de Eglise touchant V’Eucharistie, of which the first 
three volumes were published by Nicole and Arnauld be- 
tween 1669 and 1674, and the last two by Renaudot, be- 
yee i711, and 1713, ati Paris? 


I. DIRECT TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS IN 
FAVOR OF THE DOGMA OF THE REAL PRESENCE.— 
As many Protestants admit that the Fathers who 
lived after the beginning of the fourth century 
held the Catholic view of the Eucharist, we will 


1 Testimonia simplicia. 

2 Testimonia argumentosa, 

3 Though Nicole and Arnauld 
. were Jansenists, yet their monu- 
mental work on the Eucharist, Per- 
betuité de la Foi, has not yet lost 


its value (Catholic Encyclopedia, 
Vol. XIV, p. 593).— The student 
may also consult Franzelin, De 


Eucharistia, thes. 8-10, Rome 1887; 
Béguinot, La Trés Sainte Eucha- 


ristie, Exposition de la Foi des 12 
Premiers Siecles, 2 vols., Paris 1903. 
— The most ancient Patristic texts 
bearing on the Eucharist are con- 
veniently displayed by G. Rauschen, 
Florilegium Patristicum, Heft oh 
Bonn 1909. See also the same au- 
thor’s Eucharist and Penance in the 
First Six Centuries of the Church, 
Pp. r sqq., St. Louis 1913. 


56 THE REAL /PRESENGE 


first examine the teaching of those Patristic writ- 
ers who flourished in the first three centuries. 

a) Besides the Didache, which is of special im- 
portance in regard to the Mass, and which we 
shall quote in Part III of this treatise, the oldest 
Patristic witness that can be cited in support of 
the Church’s belief in the Real Presence is St. 
Ignatius of Antioch (+ about 117). 


a) Ignatius writes of the Docetists: “ They abstain 
from the Eucharist and prayer,* because they do not con- 
fess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus 
Christ, [that Flesh] which suffered for our sins, and 
which the Father raised up by His goodness.® . . . But it 
were better for them to love | dyamav, 1. e. ayarıv Tovey — 
to celebrate the Eucharist], in order that they also may 
- attain to the resurrection.” 7’ This “ realistic ” text, which 
could be matched by others from the same author,® is not 
contradicted by the “ symbolic” reflection in his Epistle to 
the Trallians: “ Be renewed in faith, which is the Flesh 
of the Lord, and in love, which is the Blood of Jesus 
Christ,” °—a passage that is as unmistakably figurative 
as the former is ie since faith and love a 
neither “ suffer” nor “attain to the resurrection.” This 
interpretation is confirmed by a close inspection of the 
OS text, which reads as follows: ’Avarrioaode &avrovs 


év miata, 0 [not 7] eorıv cüp& Tov Kupiov, kat ev ayamy, © 


4 TPOGEUXNS: i.e. liturgical wor- 241); K. Lake, The Apostolic Fa- 


ship. thers, Vol. I, p. 259, London 1912. 
5 rH edxapiorlay odpka elvar 8 Cfr. Ep. ad Eph., c. 20; Ep. ad 
TOU owrnpos TOV ’Insov Xpiorov Philad., c. 4 (ed. Funk, I, 190, 226). 
THY dep awapr lay huov madovcar. 9 Ep. ad Trall., c. 8 (ed. Funk, 
av TH xpnoToTnTe 6 marnp I, 208); K. Lake, The Apostolic Fa- 
Myeipev. thers, Vol. I, p. 219. 


7 Ep. ad Smyrn., c. 7 (ed. Funk, 1, 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 57 


[not 4] éorw alua ’Inooo Xpuoroi, i. e., the renewal of faith | 
and love is the Flesh and Blood of Christ, that is to say, 
the effect of His Flesh and Blood, in other words, a fruit 
of Holy Communion. The res sacramenti stands anto- 
nomastically for sacramentum." 

8) Another ancient witness to the doctrine of the Real 
Presence is St. Justin Martyr (+ 167). Disregarding the 
Discipline of the Secret, that famous apologist says: 
“ And this food is with us called Eucharist, and no one 
is permitted to partake of the same, except he who be- 
lieves that our teaching is true, and who has submitted 
to that ablution [Baptism] for the forgiveness of sins and 
unto regeneration, and who lives as Christ hath com- 
manded. For we take this not as common bread,*? nor as 
common drink, 12 but as Jesus Christ, our Saviour, made 
Flesh by the Divine Logos,’ had Flesh and Blood for the 
sake of our salvation, so have we been taught that also 
the food consecrated by the word of prayer coming from 
Him, by which our blood and flesh are nourished through 
conversion [?. e. bread and wine], is the Flesh and Blood 
of that Jesus who was made Flesh.'* For the Apostles 
have handed it down in their memoirs, which are called 
Gospels, that it hath been commanded them as follows: 
Jesus took bread, gave thanks, and said, ‘ Do this in com- 
memoration of me, this is my Body’; and in the same 
manner He took the chalice, gave thanks, and said, ‘ This 
is my Blood,’ and gave them all thereof.” * 


10 Cfr. Schanz, Die Lehre von den 
Sakramenten der kath. Kirche, 


14 nv bv evxns Aöyov Tov map’ 
pP. avrov evxapıormdeicav Tpobnv 


334, Freiburg 1893; J. Nirschl, Die 
Theologie des hl. Ignatius, pp. 76 
sqq., Mayence 1880. 

11 koıwöv Aprov. 

12 Koıwöv moma. 

13 ** Hie who overshadowed the 
Virgin,” cfr. Apol., I, c. 32 sq. 


(i. e. consecrated), é& Ns alua Kal 
odpkes Kara ueraßoAnv TpéepovTat 
nuw@v, Ekelvov TOV capKoTroLnGéerTos 
’Incov Kal odpka Kal alua eivaı. 

15 Apol., 1,/ c 66. (Migne, P. G., 
LXVII, . 426). Another important 
text from Justin Martyr will be 


N THE REAL PRESENCE 


St. Irenzus of Lyons (+ 203), a pupil of St. Polycarp 
of Smyrna who had personally known the Apostles, up- 
holds the dogma of the Eucharist against the Gnostics as 
an argument for the resurrection of the flesh, and in so 
doing plainly teaches the Real Presence. Take this pas- 
sage, for instance: “ He declared the chalice, which is 
taken from created things, to be His own Blood,!° where- 
with He penetrates our blood, and the bread, which is 
also a created thing, to be His own Body,!” wherewith 
He nourishes our bodies. . . . Wine and bread are by the 
word of God changed into the Eucharist, which is the 
Body and Blood of Christ.” *8 In another place St. 
Irenzeus says: “ How can these heretics [the Gnostics] 
be convinced that the consecrated bread 2° is the Body 
of their Lord, and the cup contains His Blood, if they do 
not regard Him as the Son of the Creator of the world, 
1. e., as His Logos, through whom the trees bear fruit, the 
fountains flow, and the earth produces first a blade of 
grass, then the ear, and finally, within the ear, the full 
wheatee 2s ' 

St. Hippolytus of Rome (+ 235) says: “The Logos 
prepared His precious and immaculate Body 22 and His 
Blood,’* which are daily prepared as a sacrifice 24 on the 
mysterious divine table, in commemoration of that eter- 
nally memorable first table of the mystic divine supper. 
Come and eat my Bread, and drink the wine which I have 


quoted infra, Part III, in con- 20 dprov evxapiobévra = the bread 
nection with the Mass. On St. over which thanks have been given. 
Justin’s teaching, cfr. Rauschen, 21 Cfr. L. Hopfenmüller, S. Ire- 
Eucharist and Penance, pp. 5 sq., 30 naeus de Eucharistia, Bamberg 
sqq., and Bardenhewer, Geschichte 1867. For the teaching of Clement 


der altkirchlichen Literatur, Vol. I, 
Pp. 239 sq., Freiburg 1902. 

16 alua dcop. 

17 (diov capa. 

18 Adv. Haer., V, 2, 2 sq. 

19 Op. cit., IV, 18, 4. 


of Alexandria and Origen see No. 
3, infra, pp. 69 sqq. 

22 capa. 

23 alua- 

24 émirehovvrat Ouvdmeva. 


ee ee EN 


4 
y 
3 
4 
Y 
7 
F 
£ 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 59 


mixed for you: He hath given us His own divine 
Flesh *° and His own precious Blood ?* to eat and to 
drink. 

y) Though Tertullian (b. about 160) is not always 
clear, and some of his utterances are open to misinterpre- 
tation, he roundly declares his belief in the Real Presence 
in such passages as these: “ The flesh [of Christian 
believers] is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ, in 
order that the soul, too, may be sated with God.” 28% In 
holy anger he exclaims against the makers and vendors 
of pagan idols: “ The zeal of faith will plead, bewailing 
that a Christian should come from idols into the church, 

should apply to the Lord’s Body those hands which 
give bodies to demons. ... Idol-makers are chosen 
[even] into the ecclesiastical order. Oh, shame! Once 
did the Jews lay hands on Christ; but these mangle His 
Body daily. Oh, hands to be cut off!” 2° 

Tertullian’s famous countryman, St. Cyprian (+ 
258), interprets the fourth petition of the Lord’s Prayer 
with reference to the Holy Eucharist, and concludes his 
exposition as follows: “Therefore we beg for our 
bread, 1. e. Christ, to be given to us every day, in order 


or ~A y € ~ , 
25 nv Oecay avTov odpka. 
26 Tiutov avrov aiua. 

m 


27 In Proverb., IX, 2 (Migne, 
meres 7 oN KN, 693) -Achelis 
(Hippolytstudien, p. 159, Leipzig 


1897) denies that the fragment on 
Prov. IX, 1-5 was composed by St. 
Hippolytus; but it is undoubtedly 
genuine in the form in which it was 


received into the collection of 
Anastasius Sinaita. 
28 De Resurrect. Carn, c. 8 


(Migne, P. L., II, 806): “Caro 
[Christianorum] corpore et sanguine 
Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo 
saginetur.” 


29 De Idolol., c. 7 (Migne, P. L., 


I, 669): “Zelus fidet  perora- 
bit ingemens Christianum ab 
tdolis in  ecclesiam  venire, . 


eas manus admovere corpori Domini, 
quae daemoniis corpora conferunt. 
... Alleguntur in ordinem ecclesi- 
asticum artifices idolorum. Proh 
scelus! Semel Iudaei Christo manus 
intulerunt, isti quotidie corpus eius 
lacessunt. O manus praecidendae!” 
Cfr. Dieringer, “ Die Abendmahls- 
lehre Tertullians,” in the -Katholik, 
of Mayence, 1864, I, 277 sqq. 


60 ~~ <THE REAL PRESENCE 


that we who remain and live in Christ, may not recede 
from His sanctification and Body.” *° St. Cyprian is 
opposed to giving holy Communion to sinners before they 
have performed their allotted penance,** but allows that in 
time of persecution they may be forthwith admitted to 
the Holy Table.?? 


b) After the Nicene Council (A. D. 325) the 
number of Patristic witnesses grows larger and 
their testimony increasingly clear and positive. 
The Greek Fathers, in particular, attest their faith 
in the Real Presence in terms that sometimes 
smack of exaggeration. 


a) Macarius Magnes, who flourished at the beginning 
of the fourth century,** says: “He spoke: ‘ This is my 
Body.’ Not, therefore, an image of the Body,** nor an 
image of the Blood, as some feeble-minded persons have 
foolishly asserted, but in truth the Body and Blood of 
Christ.//*5 


30De Or. Dom, ©. 318° ‘ed. 
Hartel, I, 280): “Et ideo panem 
nostrum, 1. e. Christum, dari nobis 


Primitive, 2nd ed., Paris 1904; A. 
Struckmann, Die Gegenwart Christi 
in der hl. Eucharistie nach den 


quotidie petimus, ut qui in Christo 
manemus et vivimus, a sanctificatione 
eius et corpore non recedamus.” 
81 Ctr. De Lapsis; (10 1G. 6.21, 
248): “Vis infertur corpori eius 
et sanguini et plus modo in Domi- 
num manibus atque ore delinquunt, 
quam quum Dominum negaverunt.” 
32 Cfr. Ep. 57 ad Cornel., 2 (l. ¢., 
Il, 652): “Nam quomodo docemus 
aut provocamus eos in confessione 
nominis sanguinem suum fundere, 
si tis militaturis Christi sanguinem 
denegamus?”’—Cfr. J. Döllinger, 
Die Eucharistie in den drei ersten 
Jahrhunderten, Mayence 1826; Er- 
moni, L’Eucharistie dans Il Eglise 


schriftlichen Quellen der vornizäni- 
schen Zeit, Vienna 1905. 

33 This writer’s Apocriticus was 
first edited in full by C. Blondel, 
Paris 1876 (Maxapiov Mayvnros 
’Amoxpırırös), but a Eucharistic 
fragment extracted therefrom had 
been previously published by Pitra 
(Spicil. Solesm., II, 548 b, Paris 
1852). It is this fragment from 
which we quote in the text (ed. 
Blondel, p. 106). 

34 rUrros TOU OWuaTos- 

35 d\Ad Kar’ aAndeıav coua Kal 
aiua Xpicrov. On a similar ex- 
pression employed by the Syrian 
Bishop Maruthas, v. supra, p. 36. 


PROOF FROM TRADITION a 


St. Gregory of Nyssa (b. about 331) speaks of the 
Real Presence in strongly “ realistic” terms. He says: 
“ Rightly, therefore, I believe that even to-day the bread, 
being sanctified by the word of God, is converted into the 
Body of the Logos-God.?® . . . This bread, as the Apostle 
says, is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, be- 
coming converted into the Body of the Logos, not by eat- 
ing and drinking, but instantly changing into the Body of 
the Logos, as has been declared by the Logos Himself : 
‘This is my Body.’ . . . Through an act of grace He im- 
plants Himself by the flesh into all the faithful, com- 
mingled with the bodies of the faithful, . . . in order that 
man, by being united with the immortal [Body of Christ], 
be made to partake of incorruptibility. This gift He be- 
stows in virtue of the power of consecration, by trans- 
forming the nature of that which is sensible into that 
[ Body ].” 37 

St. Gregory of Nazianzus (+ about 390) says: 
“Doubt not when thou hearest of the Blood of God, but 
without taking scandal unhesitatingly eat the Body °§ and 
drink the Blood,*® if thou desirest to have life,” 4° 

St. Basil (+ 379) * and St. Athanasius (+ 373) 4 ex- 
press themselves in similar terms. 

ß) Our two principal witnesses among the Greek 
Fathers are St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. John 
Chrysostom. 

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) dwells on the Eu- 
charist in the last two chapters of his famous Catecheses 
Mystagogicae. After quoting the words of institution, 


36 els owua Tov Oeov Adyou 39 mie TO aiua. 
ueramoıeiodaı. 40 Or., 45, n. 19. 

37 rm THS EVAOYias Suvduer mpös 41 Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dog- 
éxeivo (owua) weracroıxeiwsas mat., Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 282 sq. 
Tov palvouevwy thy gio. Or. 42 His teaching is explained by 
Catech., c. 37 (Migne, P. G., XLV, Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des 
93 sq.). hl. Athanasius, pp. 219 sqq., Mu- 


38 pave TO THA. "nich 1880, 


62 THE REAL PRESENCE 


according to the version given by St. Paul, he asks: 
“Since He [Christ] Himself, therefore, said of the bread: 
‘ This is my Body,’ who will venture to waver? And since 
He Himself assures us: ‘This is my Blood,’ who should 
ever doubt that it is His Blood? At Cana in Galilee He 
once converted * water into wine, which is akin to blood. 
Is He undeserving of belief when He converts wine into 
blood? #* . . . Therefore, let us receive it with full con- 
viction as the Body and Blood of Christ. For under the 
appearance of bread *° thou receivest the Body, and under 
the appearance of wine,*® the Blood, in order that through 
the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ thou 


mayest become of one body and blood with Him.47 In 


this way, too, we are made bearers of Christ,*® since His 
Body and Blood are received into our members... . 
Hence do not regard it as mere bread and wine; for 
according to the Lord’s assurance it is the Body and 
Blood of Christ. Though the senses *® seem to tell thee 
otherwise, faith °° gives thee certainty. Do not judge by 
the taste,°! but obtain from faith the indubitable certitude 
that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of 
Christ... . Having been thus instructed and convinced 
that what appears to be bread is not bread,®* though it 
seem thus to the taste, but the Body of Christ, and what 
appears to be wine is not wine,’® though it seem thus to 
the taste, but the Blood of Christ, . .. strengthen thy 
heart by eating this bread as a spiritual food, and make 
glad the face of thy soul.” °* 


43 ueraßeßAnker. 504 mieris. 
44 olvov weraBarwv els alna- 5lamo THs yevoews. 
45 Ey rimw äprov. 526 gatvdmevos &pros otk Apros 
46 Ev Timm olvov. ° eorıv. 

\4 x Uy > 2 [4 € 4 ‘ef > 7 ioe 2 
47 guogWMOS Kal TlvaLuos aUTOV. 530 &atvouevos olvos CUK olyes 
48 xpıoToböpoı. eorıv. 


49% alaOnoats. 54 Catech. Myst., IV, n. 2 sqq. 


* 
RN. 
x 


PROOF FROM TRADITION ss eae 


The “ Doctor of the Eucharist” par excellence is St. 
Chrysostom. None of the Fathers has inculcated the 
Real Presence so frequently and in such “ realistic,’’ not 
to say exaggerated, language as he. Pointing to the altar 
he says: “Thou approachest a fearful, a holy sacrifice. 
Christ lies there slain,’5® to reconcile thee ... to the 
Creator of the universe.” °° In another place he writes: 
“When you enter the church, do not believe that you 
receive the divine Body from a man, but you shall believe 
to receive the divine Body like the live coal from the 
tongs of the Seraphim [in the prophecy of Isaias] 
and you shall drink the salutary Blood as if you 
sucked it with your lips from the divine and immaculate 
side.” ®? And again: “That which is in the chalice, is 
the same as that which flowed from the side of Christ, 
and of this we are made partakers. . . . What the Lord 
did not tolerate on the cross [?. e., the breaking of his 
limbs], He tolerates now in the sacrifice,°* for the love of 
thee; He permits Himself to be broken into pieces,®® so 
that all may be filled to satiety. ... The wise men 
adored this Body when it lay in the manger; they pros- 
trated themselves before it in fear and trembling. Now 
you behold the same Body which the wise men adored 
in the manger, lying upon the altar ; you also know its vir- 
tue and salutary effect... . Already in the present life 
this mystery changes the earth for you into Heaven; the 
sublimest thing that is there, — the Body of the Lord,— 
you can behold here on earth. Yea, you not only behold 
ity pues Oustoueh ib and eatin. 


(Migne, P. G., XXXIII, 1098 sqq.). 57 Hom. de Poenit., IX, n. 1. 
On the terminology of St. Cyril, 58 énl Tas mpoobopäs. — 
see infra pp. 72 sq. 59 dvéxeTat StakNwpevos. 
55 éoparyueves mpökerrar 6 Xpr 60 Hom. in ı Cor., XXIV, n. 1, 
oTOS. 2, 5 


56 Hom. de Prod. Iudae, I, 6. 


64 THE’REAL PRESENCE 


One of the most forcible passages in the writings of St. 
Chrysostom —a veritable locus classicus — is the follow- 
ing: “How many now-a-days say: Would that I 
could gaze upon His form, His figure, His raiment, His 
shoes! Lo! thou seest Him, touchest Him, eatest Him. 
He gives Himself to thee, not merely to look upon, but 
even to touch, to eat, and to receive within thee. .. . 
Consider at whose table thou eatest! For we are fed with 
that which the angels view with trepidation and which 
they cannot contemplate without fear because of its 
splendor. We become one mass with Him: we are be- 
come one body and one flesh with Christ... . What 
shepherd feeds His sheep with his own flesh? Some 

nothers entrust their new-born infants to nurses; this 
He did not wish to do, but He nourishes us with His 
own Blood, He unites Himself with us. These are not 


deeds of human power. . . . We take the place of serv- 


ants ; it is He who consecrates and transmutes [the bread 
and wine].” . 

y) St. Cyril of Alexandria (+ 444), because of his op- 
position to Nestorius, concerned himself with the “ life- 
giving virtue of the flesh of Christ” mainly from the 
point of view of the Hypostatic Union.°* But there are 
two passages in his works where he teaches the Real 
Presence as well as Transubstantiation simply and with- 
out any controversial bias. The first of these reads as 
follows: “As a life-giving Sacrament we possess the 
sacred Flesh of Christ and His precious Blood under the 
appearances of bread and wine,°® in order that we may 


6latvrés 6€ Eavröv Sidwot otvK 1 sad. Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, 
ldeiv uövov, dd\da Kal GYacbar Kal Patrology, pp. 341 sq.; A. Nagle, 


bayeiv Kal Aaßeiv Evdov. Die Eucharistielehre des hl. Chryso- 
62 yeyövanev Nuets owua Ev Kat stomus, pp. 8 sqq., Freiburg 1900. 
oapé pia. 64V. infra, pp. 70 sq. 


63 Hom. in Matth., 82 [83], n. 65 ws Ev dptw Kal olvw. 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 65 


not be struck with terror if we see flesh and blood lying 
upon the holy altars of our churches, God |by the conse- 
cration] breathed living power into the proffered gifts and 
converted them into the energy of His own flesh.’ 6° 
The second passage runs thus: “ Pointing to the bread, 
the Lord spake: ‘This is my Body,’ and to the wine: 
‘ This is my Blood,’ in order that thou shouldst not imagine 
that what thou seest is merely an image,®’ but that thou 
shouldst believe that the gifts are in a mysterious way 
truly converted into the Body and Blood of Christ.” ® 

The testimonies of the Syriac Fathers have been col- 
lected by Th. Lamy in his work De Syrorum Fide et 
Disciplina in Re Eucharistica.® 


c) The Latin Fathers of the fourth and fifth 
centuries are no less clear and emphatic than their 
Greek colleagues in asserting the Real Presence. 


a) St. Hilary (+ 366), the doughty champion of the 
faith against the Arians of the West, writes: “He 
[Christ] Himself says: ‘ My Flesh is truly meat, and my 
Blood is truly drink ; he that eateth my Flesh and drinketh 
my Blood, abideth in me, and I in him.’ Of the verity of 
the Flesh and Blood there is no room left for doubting. 
For now both by the declaration of the Lord Himself, 
and by our faith, it is truly Flesh and it is truly Blood; 
and these, when eaten and drunk, effect that we are in 
Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not the truth?” 7° 
Cyrill von Alexandrien, Paderborn 


1910. 
69 Louvain 1859.— For other Pa- 


66 uehiornoev avTd& mpös Evep- 
yeıav THS Eavrod capKds. (In Lu- 
cam, 22, 19). 


67 TUmov elvat TA baıvöuera. 

68 ueramoleiodaı eis owua Kal 
alua Xpwrrov Kara To adnGés. 
(In Matth., 26, 27). Cir. Struck- 
mann, Die Eucharistielehre des hl. 


tristic texts bearing on this subject 
see Franzelin, De Eucharistia, pp. 
85 sqq. 

70De Trinit., VIII, 14: “Ipse 
ait: “Caro mea vere est esca et san- 


66 THE REAL SPRESENCE 


St. Ambrose (-++ 397), in his famous treatise De M yste- 
riis, which forms such an admirable counterpart to the 
Catecheses Mystagogicae of St. Cyril, instructs his neo- 
phytes on the nature of the Eucharist. After pointing out 
its Old Testament types (the manna, the water that came 
forth from a rock at Moses’ command, etc.), he con- 
tinues: “ This was done as a figure for us. You know 
the higher things; for light is superior to darkness, truth 
to figure, the body of the Author to the manna from 
heaven.” To explain Transubstantiation the same 
writer recalls how the words of Moses turned a rod into 
a serpent, how Elias called down fire from heaven, how 
God created the universe out of nothing, and then asks: 
“ Shall not the words of Christ have power to change the 
appearances of the elements? . . . Cannot, therefore, the 
words of Christ, who was able to make something out of 
nothing, change that which already exists into something 
which it was not before? . . . What we effect [by con- 
secration], is the Body taken from the virgin. Why dost 
thou here seek the order of nature, since the Lord Jesus, 
born of a virgin, is Himself above nature? Truly, there- 
fore [is this] the Flesh of Christ, which was crucified and 
buried; truly, therefore, is it the Sacrament of His 
fleshy? it 


Pe a ne a ee) ae lee NY ET 


guis meus vere est potus; qui edit 
carnem meam et bibit sanguinem 
meum, in me manet et ego in eo.’ 
De veritate carnis et sanguinis non 
relictus est ambigendi locus. Nunc 
enim et ipsius Domini professione 
et fide nostra vere caro est et vere 
sanguis est; et haec accepta atque 
hausta id efhciunt, ut et nos in 
Christo et Christus in nobis sit. 
Anne hoc veritas non est?” 

71De Myst., c. 8, n. 49: “ Haec 
in figura facia sunt nostra. Cogno- 
visti praestantiora: potior est enim 


lux quam umbra, veritas quam figu- 
ra, corpus auctoris quam manna de 
caelo.”’ 

TOD ibe, LEN, SU sa Man 
valebit Christi sermo, ut species mu- 
tet elementorum? ... Sermo ergo 
Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere 
quod non erat, non potest ea quae 
sunt in id mutare, quod non erant? 

. Hoc quod conficimus, corpus 
ex Virgine est; quid hic quaeris 
naturae ordinem, quum praeter na- 
turam sit ipse Dominus Iesus partus 
ex Virgine? Vera utique caro 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 67 


ß) The writings of St. Augustine (+ 430) contain no 
such striking passages. The probable reason is that he 
found no Eucharistic heresy to combat and felt more 
strictly bound by the Discipline of the Secret.” Address- 
ing himself almost exclusively to persons already initiated 
into the Christian mysteries, the Bishop of Hippo dwelt 
chiefly on the necessity and value of holy Commun- 
ion and had no occasion to discuss the dogma of the 
Real Presence. The enemies of the Church do not 
scruple to maintain that he was an out-and-out “ Sym- 
bolist.” 74 In the opinion of Loofs,’ St. Augustine 
“never gave a thought to the reception of the true Body 
and Blood of Christ.” Adolph Harnack ‘* declares that 
St. Augustine “in this respect was undoubtedly of one 
mind with the so-called pre-Reformation and with 
Zwingli.” Against this unwarranted contention Catho- 
lics set the undoubted fact that Augustine professed be- 
lief in Transubstantiation. “ That which is seen on the 
table of the Lord,” he says, “is bread and wine; but this 
bread and this wine, when the word is added, becomes 
the Body and Blood of the Logos.”** And again: 
“ This bread which you see upon the altar, sanctified by 
the word of God, is the Body of Christ; this chalice, or 
rather that which it contains, sanctified by the word of 
God, is the Blood of Christ.” "* St. Augustine further- 
Christi, quae crucifixa est, quae 
sepulta est: vere ergo carnis illins 
sacramentum est.” 


73V, infra, No: 3, p. 74. 
74 See Schanz, “Die Lehre des 


77 Serm., 5 (ed. Caillou, p. 12, 
Paris 1842): “ Hoc quod videtur in 
mensa Domini, panis est et vinum; 
sed iste panis et hoc vinum acce- 
dente verbo fit corpus et sanguis 


Augustinus über die Eucharistie,” 
in the Theol Quartalschrift of 
Tübingen, 1896, pp. 79 sqq. 

75 Dogmengeschichte, 4th ed., p. 
409, Halle 1906. \ 

76 Dogmengeschichte, zrd ed., p. 
148, Freiburg 1897. i 


Verbi.” 

78 Serm., 227: “ Panis ille, quem 
videtis in altari, sanctificatus per 
verbum Dei corpus est Christi; calix 
ille, imo quod habet calix, sanctifica- 
tum per verbum Dei sanguis est 
Chinstie 


68 THESREALCPRESENGE 


more declares that “ Christ carried Himself in His own 
hands,” and that we owe divine worship to the Eucha- 
rist.’” Moreover, it is not fair to detach the great Doc- 
tor’s teaching on the Eucharist from his teaching on the 
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where he clearly and un- 
equivocally asserts that the true Body and Blood of Christ 
are offered on the altar.®° 

We may conclude the Patristic testimonies with a quota- 
tion from Pope St. Leo the Great (+ 461), who says: 
“The Lord avers (John VI, 54): ‘Except you eat the 
Flesh of the Son of man, and drink His Blood, you shall 
not have life in you.” Hence you should so partake of 
this sacred table that you have no doubt whatever con- 
cerning the truth of the Body of Christ. For that is 
consumed with the mouth which is believed by faith, 
and in vain do those respond ‘ Amen’ who dispute against 
that which is received.” * 


CS ENA. UNEP S33 nls 10. ean et 9): “A solis ortu usque ad occa- 


ferebatur in manibus suis (1 Reg. 
21). Hoc vero, fratres, quomodo 
possit heri in homine, quis intelli- 
gat? Quis enim portatur in mani- 
bus suis? Manibus aliorum potest 
portari homo, manibus suis nemo 
portatur. ... In Christo autem in- 
venimus. Ferebatur enim ‚Christus 
in manibus suis, quando commen- 
dans ipsum corpus suum ait: Hoc 
est corpus meum. Ferebat enim 
illud corpus in manibus suis.” — 
Enarr.: m Ps., 98, n:' 9: ‚© Ouia 
carnem nobis manducandam ad sa- 
lutem dedit, nemo autem carnem 
illam manducat nisi prius adoraverit, 
inventum est, quemadmodum adore- 
tur tale scabellum pedum Domini 
(Ps. 98, 5), et non solum non pec- 
cemus adorando, sed peccemus non 
adorando.”’ (Gir: Pohle-Preuss, 
Christology, pp. 286 sq.) 

80 Cit.: Serm.; 3.(éd. Caillou; p. 


sum, sicuti a prophetis praedictum 
est, immolatur. ... Non adhuc de 
gregibus pecorum hostia cruenta con- 
quiritur, non ovis aut hircus divinis 
altaribus admovetur, sed sacrificium 
tam nostri temporis corpus et san- 
guis est ipsins Sacerdotis.... 
Cum timore et tremore ad partici- 
pationem huius altaris accedite. 
Hoc agnoscite in pane, quod pepen- 
dit im cruce; hoc in calice, quod 
manavit ex latere.’— Cfr. O. Blank, 
Die Lehre des hl. Augustin vom 
Sakramente der Eucharistie, Pader- 
born 1907; K. Adam, Die Eucha- 
ristielehre des hl. Augustin, Pader- 
born 1908. 

81 Serm., 91, © 3: “ Dicente 
Domino: ‘ Nisi manducaveritis,’ etc. 
(Ioa. vi, 54), sic sacrae mensae 
communicare debetis, ut nihil pror- 
sus de veritate corporis Christi et 
sanguinis ambigatis. Hoc enim ore 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 69 


2. INDIRECT TESTIMONIES.—The Christologi- 
cal heresies of the early centuries naturally af- 
fected the doctrine of the Eucharist, though only. 
in an indirect manner. Few heretics openly at- 
tacked the Real Presence. Some even dared to 
use this dogma to bolster their erroneous teach- 
ing on the Person of our Lord. The Patris- 
tic writers who defended the Catholic doctrine 
had little trouble to refute this class of opponents. 
They showed how those who admitted the Real 
Presence were inconsistent in their Christological 
teaching, while those who pretended to base 
their errors on the Eucharist, were unwilling wit- 
nesses to the truth of the dogma. 


a) The Church teaches that there are two natures in 
Christ, one divine, the other human, and that these two 
natures are hypostatically united in one Person. 

a) One of the first heretics to deny the Divinity of our 
Lord was Paul of Samosata, who tried to prove the cor- 
ruptibility, and consequently the non-divinity, of the 
Eucharistic Blood from the fact that it is divided into 
parts when received in Holy Communion. Dionysius the 
Great of Alexandria (+ 264) answered this specious 
objection as follows: “As little as the Holy Ghost is 
perishable because He is poured forth into our hearts, 
just so little is the Blood of Christ corruptible, which is 
not the blood of a mortal man, but of the true God, who 
sumitur, quod fide creditur, et fru- 452).— Other Latin Fathers are co- 
stra ab illis ‘Amen’ respondetur, piously quoted by Franzelin, De 


a quibus contra id, quod accipitur, Evucharistia, pp. 114 sqq. 
disputatur.” (Migne, P. L., LIV, 


70 THE REAL PRESENCE 


is a well-spring of joy for all who partake therefrom.” *? 

The Arians argued that, as there is but a moral union 
between the Eucharistic Christ and the devout communi- 
cant, so the union between the Three Persons of the Trin- 
ity, which is the prototype of the former,®? must also be a 
purely moral one. St. Hilary refuted this erroneous con- 
tention by demonstrating the consubstantiality of Christ 
with His Father from the real union that exists between 
the Eucharistic Body and its recipient in Holy Commun- 
ion.st 

At the opposite extreme stood the Docetae, who denied 
the reality of Christ’s human body. They were re- 
futed by St. Ignatius of Antioch®® and other ancient 
Fathers by simple reference to the Holy Eucharist. He 
who has a real body in the Blessed Sacrament, they ar- 
gued, cannot have had a merely apparitional or phantom 
body during His sojourn on earth. Tertullian employed 
the same argument against the Gnostics.* 

ß) The dogma of the Hypostatic Union of the two 
natures in Christ was attacked by the Nestorians and 
the Monophysites. The former maintained that there 

82 Opera Dionys. Alexandr., p. 
233, Rome 1706. 


83.Cfr.. Jolını Vig 573 OVE wr 
sqdq. 


in eo est et ille in nobis, quomodo 
woluntatis unitas asseritur, quum 
naturalis per sacramentum proprictas 
perfectae sacramentum sit unitatis? ’’ 


@ 

' 

a 
¥ 


84 St. Hilary, De Trinitate, VIII, 
13: “Si vere Verbum caro factum 
est et vere nos Verbum carnem cibo 
dominico sumimus, quomodo non 
naturaliter manere in nobis existi- 
mandus est, qui et naturam carnis 
nostrae... assumpsit et naturam 
carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis 
sub sacramento nobis communican- 
dae carnis admiscuit? ... Si vere 


homo ille, qui ex Maria natus fuii, 


Christus est nosque vere sub my- 
sterio carnem corporis sui sumimus 
et per hoc unum erimus, quia Pater 


85 Ep. ad Smyrn., 7. 

86 Adv. Marcion., IV, 40: “ Sic 
et in calicis mentione testamentum 
constituens sanguine suo obsignatum 
substantiam corporis confrmavtt. 
Nullius enin corporis sanguis potest 
esse nist carnis. Nam etsi qua cor- 
poris qualitas non carnea opponetur 
nobis, certe sanguinem nisi carnea 
non habebit. Ita consistit probatio 
corporis de testimonio carnis, pro- 
batio carnis de testimonio sangui- 
nis.” 


FREU Se > P 
Eat a a nn 


PROOF FROM TRADITION ZT 


are two Persons in the God-man, while the latter asserted 
that He has but one nature. Against the Nestorians, 
St. Cyril of Alexandria argued as follows: “Who is 
He that said: ‘Whosoever eats my flesh and drinks my 
blood, abides in me and I in him’? If i¢ were a mere 
man who became like unto us, and not rather the God- 
Logos, that which happens [in Communion] would be an- 
thropophagy,*’ and participation therein were useless.” 8 
The Monophysites, on the other hand, asserted that as 
bread and wine are converted into the Body and Blood 
of Christ in the Eucharist, so humanity was converted 
into Divinity in the Hypostatic Union. They were met by 
Theodoret, St. Ephraem, Gelasius, and other orthodox 
writers with the statement that the human nature in the 
Hypostatic Union remains quite as unchanged as the 
physical accidents of bread and wine in the Eucharist 
after the consecration.® 

b) Holy Communion was cited by the earliest Patristic 
authors as an argument for the resurrection of the flesh. 
Thus St. Irenzeus wrote against the Gnostics: “How 
can they say that the flesh will decay and does not par- 
ticipate in the life,— [that flesh] which is nourished by 
the Body of the Lord and by His Blood? Let them, 
therefore, change their opinion or cease to offer up these 
things. Our faith, on the contrary, is consonant with the 
Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our faith? 

St. Cyril of Alexandria develops the same thought as 
follows: “ Although death, which has come upon us on 
account of sin, subjects the human body to the necessity 
of decay, nevertheless we shall surely rise again because 
Christ is in us through His Flesh; for it is incredible, 

87 dvOpwropayia. imo Tov owuaros Tov Kuplov 


88 Contra Nestor., IV,-s. Kat aluaros avrov. 
89, V-injra,, Ch. V,\ Secta ‘te. - 91 Adv. Haer., IV, 18, 4. 


72 THE REAL PRESENCE 


nay impossible, that the Life should not vivify those in 
whom it is.” °? 

3. SOLUTION OF PATRISTIC DIFFICULTIES.— 
The difficulties that arise concerning the Eucha- 
ristic teaching of some of the Fathers may be 
accounted for on three general grounds: (1) 
these Fathers felt secure in the possession of the 
truth; (2) they had a distinct preference for the 
allegorical interpretation of Scripture; and (3) 
they were bound by the Discipline of the Secret. 

a) We will first consider these general reasons 
and then examine some of the doubtful texts. 

a) The doctrine of the Real Presence was not 
seriously impugned before the eleventh century; 
hence, for the first one thousand years of the 
Church’s history, the truth was in peaceful and 
secure possession of the field. 


During this period the faithful had a deep and un- 


questioning belief in the Real Presence. This feeling of 
security is probably responsible for some loose state- 
ments and a certain inaccuracy on the part of some 
early theologians. The obscure and ambiguous ut- 
terances that occur in their writings are more than coun- 
terbalanced, however, by a number of others that are 
perfectly clear and evident,°® and by every rule of sound 
hermeneutics the former should be explained by the lat- 
es 


92In Ioa., 6, 55, lib IV, 2.— berlet, Dogmat. Theol., Vol. IX, 
Similarly Tertullian (De Resurr. § 530. 
Carnis, c. 8) and many other Pa- 93 V. supra, Nos. ı and 2. 
tristic writers.— On the subject of 94 It was sheer ignorance that dic- 


this subdivision cfr. Heinrich-Gut- tated Calvin’s remark: ‘“ Constat 


ar Elan ee 


et = ® 
Be ae Ei nd 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 73 


B) Some of the Fathers, especially those be- 
longing to the so-called Alexandrian school 
(Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyril), 
showed a marked preference for the allegorical 
interpretation of Scripture. 


' This tendency found a salutary counterpoise in the 
way in which the literal interpretation was cultivated by 
the school of Antioch (Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theo- 
doret), whose methods were espoused by St. John 
Chrysostom.°® The allegorical sense which the Alexan- 
drians emphasized, did not, of course, exclude the literal 
sense, but rather supposed it as a working basis (at 
least in the New Testament), and hence the realistic 
phraseology of Clement, Origen, and Cyril can be read- 
ily accounted for.’ Clement (+ 217), despite his al- 
legoric tendencies, obviously professed the Real Presence, 
for he says: “ The Lord gives us this very appropriate 
food. He offers His flesh and pours out His Blood,” 
and nothing is wanting for the growth of the chil- 
dren. O incomprehensible mystery!” Origen (+ 
254), who frequently speaks of the Eucharistic Bread 
as “the sign of the Logos,” and describes meditation 
on the Logos as “a paschal feast,” did not allow the 
Discipline of the Secret to prevent him from publicly pro- 
fessing his belief in the Real Presence. He says: “ We 
eat loaves of bread which, through prayer, have become 


vetustos omnes scriptores, qui totis 


~ quinque saeculis post Apostolos vi- 


verunt, uno ore nobis patrocinari.” 

95 In Is., V, 7: “Tlavraxov ris 
ypagdys ovros 6 vönos, émeday 
adrnyopy, A€yeww Kal ddAdnyoplas 
Thy éppevelay.” (Migne, P. G., 
LVI, 60). 


96 Cfr, Ph. , Hergenröther, Die 


antiochenische Schule, Würzburg 
1866; Kihn, Bedeutung der anti- 
ochenischen Exegetenschule, Würz- 
burg 1866. 

97 gapka épéyer kal alua- Eerxeeı. 

98 Tov mapaddtov muvorrpiov. 
(Paedag., I, 6; Migne, P. G., VIII, 
302). ARR 


74 THE REAL PRESENCE 


a certain holy Body,®® which purifies those who eat it with 

a-clean heart.” 1° | 
Among the Latin Fathers St. Augustine is almost the 

only one whose attitude has given rise to controversy.!?! 


y) Because of the strictness with which the 
Discipline of the Secret was maintained in the 
early centuries, some of the Fathers in their ser- 
mons and popular writings did not express them- 
selves as clearly on the Holy Eucharist as might 
be expected. 


The Discipline of the Secret was enforced in the East 
until the end of the fifth, and in the West down to the 
middle of the sixth century. It concerned principally 
the Eucharist. Origen says: “ He who has been initi- 
ated into the mysteries knows the flesh of the Logos- 
God; let us therefore no longer dwell on that which is 
known to the initiate, but must not be revealed to the un- 
initiate.”’ 1% St. Epiphanius- (+ 403), in a letter ad- 
dressed to the clergy and magistrate of the city of Sue- 
dra, repeats our Saviour’s words of institution in this 
rather strange form: ”EAaße rade Kal evxapıornoas ee 
Touré pov Eori ode.” St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom 
often employ the expression: “Norunt initiati— 


’ 
(oacıv oi mıoroi.!'* 


b) Aside from these general considerations, 
we may reduce the Patristic difficulties regarding 


: 
4 
{ 
3 
a 
: 
u 
; 
3 
4 
Y 
ä 
> 


99 gHyua Ayıöv TI. 

100 C. Cels., VIII, 32. 

101 V. supra, pp. 67 sq. Other 
Patristic texts, including such as 
favor an allegorical interpretation, 
in Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance 


in the First Six Centuries of the 
Church, pp. 7 "sqq. 

102 Hom. in Levit., IX, n. 10. 

108 Ancorat., c. 57 (Migne, P. G,, 
XLII, 117). 

104 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra- 
ments, Vol, I, pp. 52 sqq. 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 75 


the dogma of the Real Presence to four distinct 
categories.*°° 

a) The Fathers do not always draw a clear-cut 
distinction between the sacramental species 
(species panis et vini) on the one hand, and the 
Body and Blood of Christ (corpus et sanguis 
Christi) on the other. 


For want of a more accurate terminology, they often 
refer to the sacramental species as “ signs,” “ types,” 
“symbols,” or “ figures.” However, they are far from 
employing these terms in the Protestant sense. They 
simply mean to say that the species of bread and wine are 
visible signs, types, or symbols of the invisible Body of 
Christ. The Tridentine Council itself declares that “ the 
most Holy Eucharist . . . is a symbol of a sacred thing 
and a visible form of an invisible grace.” 1° Carefully 
distinguishing these two factors, St. Cyril of Jerusalem 
opposes the “type of bread ” 1° to the “antitype of the 
body,” 1% thereby not denying but emphasizing the Real 
Presence.1 Tertullian is to be understood in the same 
sense when he says: “ Acceptum panem et distributum 
discipulis corpus suum illum fecit ‘hoc est corpus meum’ 
dicendo, 1. e. figura corporis mei; figura autem non 
fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus.’ ™° Bardenhewer ex- 
plains this passage as follows: “In the sentence ‘hoc 
est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei, the 


105 We here follow Cardinal 108 avrirvmov owparos. 
Franzelin (De Eucharistia, thes. 109 Catech. Mystag., V, n. 20: 
EO) eth “Qui enim gustant, non panem et 

A008 SOSS XII], CAPS Zen. vinum gustare inbentur, sed antity- 


symbolum rei sacrae et invisibilis pum corporis et sanguinis Christi 

gratiae formam visibilem.’ (Den- (ävrirumov ouuaros Kal aluaros).” 

zinger-Bannwart, n. 876). (Migne, P. G., XXXIII, 1123). 
107 rbmos äprov. - 110 Contr. Marcion., IV, 40. 


76 THE REAL PRESENCE 


words ‘ figura corporis mei’ are not meant to elucidate 
the subject ‘hoc’ (per hyperbaton), but the predicate 
‘corpus meum’; the true body is present under the image 
of bread.” 322 In the light of this interpretation St. 
Augustine, too, can be understood in a perfectly ortho- 
dox sense when he writes: “Non enim Dominus dubi- 
tavit dicere: ‘Hoc est corpus meum, quum signum 
daret corporis swi.” "2 He means that the “ signum” 
contains Christ Himself, because the point he wishes to 
make, according to the context, is that the Holy Eucharist 
is a sign or symbol of the Body of Christ in the same 
sense in which the presence of blood in an animal is a 
sign of the brute soul.’"® 

Other obscure or ambiguous Patristic texts can be sat- 
isfactorily explained if we remember that the Eucha- 
ristic elements (bread and wine) were sometimes called 
“types” or “antitypes” of the Body and Blood of 
Christ even before the consecration,* and that not. in- 
frequently the sacramental Body is represented as a 
“type” or “antitype” of our Saviour’s natural body 
in Heaven.» 


8) The Fathers often regard the Body of 
Christ according to its threefold mode of being: 
the status connaturalis mortalis, in which it ap- 


peared during His earthly career in Palestine; 


111 Geschichte der altkirchlichen 118 Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praelect. 
Literatur, Vol. Il, p. 391, Freiburg Dogmat., Vol. VI, 3rd ed., p. 293. 
1903. — A different interpretation of 114 See the proceedings of the 
the passage is given by Rauschen, Second Council of Nicaea, A. D. 


Eucharist and Penance, p. 12.— Cfr. 787 (Hardouin, Coll. Concil., IV, 

C. L. Leimbach, Beiträge sur Abend- 370). 

mahlslehre Tertullians, p. 83 115 Cfr. St. John Damascene, De 

Gotha 1874. Fide Orthodoxa, IV, ı3 (Migne, 
112 Contr. Adimant. Manich., c. P. G., XCIVys 1146. 899.). 

12, 3 (Migne, P. L., XLII, 144). 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 77 


the status connaturalis gloriosus, which is its 
transfigured state in Heaven; and the status sa- 
cramentalis, in which it exists in the Holy Eucha- 
rist. In the first of these states they call it the 
true Body of Christ, in the second and third, His 
“typical,” “antitypical,” or “symbolic” Body." 


Such language easily gives rise to misunderstanding. 
Instead of emphasizing the numerical identity of the Body 
in all three states, the ancient Fathers, never fearing to 
be misunderstood, often speak of the true Body of Christ 
in the Eucharist as the “type” or “symbol” of the 
same true Body in its natural state, both on earth and in 
Heaven, and with this relation in mind, characterize it 
as a “spiritual Body.” "* In employing this phrase- 
ology they no more wish to deny the reality of the sacra- 
mental Body than did St. Paul when he said in his 
First Epistle to the Corinthians, that our own natural 
body “shall rise a spiritual body ” in the resurrection of 
the dead.** St. Augustine is quite plain on this point; 
he puts into the mouth of our Saviour the following in- 
terpretation of the words of institution: ‘ Understand 
the words I have spoken in a spiritual sense; it is not 
this body you see, which you are about to eat, nor are 
you about to drink that blood which those shall shed 
who will crucify me. It is a sacrament that I have given 
to you; understood spiritually, it will give you life; 
though it is necessary to celebrate this [sacrament] vis- 
ibly, yet it must be understood in an invisible manner.” 119 


116 V, Art. 1, No. 1, supra. P. L., XXXVII, 1265): “ Spiritua- 
117 Corpus spirituale, giua mvev- liter intelligite, quod locutus sum; 
HaTıKÖV. { non hoc corpus, quod videtis, 
31397 Cor.EXRNV N AA, manducaturi estis, et bibituri illum 


119 Enarr. in Ps., 98, n. 9 (Migne, sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt qui 


78 THE REAL PRESENCE 


y) A further source of misunderstanding is 
the habit which some of the Fathers have of 
representing the Holy Eucharist as a “sign of 
the mystical Christ,” 7. e. the effective symbol of 
our spiritual union with His mystic body, the 
Church. 


In this union there are two factors: sacramental com- 
munion as the cause, and the mystic union of the recipi- 
ent with the Church, as the effect. Where both are duly 
emphasized, there is no room for misunderstanding. 
But certain of the Fathers, especially St. Augustine, 
often dwell on the latter alone, without mentioning the 
former. It should be noted that when he speaks of the 
nature of the Eucharist, St. Augustine is invariably ad- 
dressing initiated Christians, who are familiar with the 
dogma of the Real Presence. To such he could say 
without danger of being misinterpreted: “ Therefore, 
if thou wilt understand the Body of Christ, listen to the 
Apostle who says: ‘ But you are the Body of Christ and 
His members.’ Your sacrament is placed on the Lord’s 
table, you will receive your sacrament. . . . For you hear 
the words, ‘The Body of Christ, and you answer 
‘Amen.’ Be a member of the Body of Christ, in order 
that your ‘Amen’ may be a true one.” *”° 


membra.’ Mysterium vestrum in 
mensa dominica positum est, my- 


me crucifigent: sacramentum aliquod 
vobis commendavi, spiritualiter in- 


tellectum vivificabit vos; etsi ne- sterium vestrum accipietis ... Au- 
cesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, dis enim: ‘Corpus Christi’ et 
oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi.” respondes: ‘Amen.’ Esto mem- 


—Cfr. M. M. Wilden, Die Lehre 
des hl. Augustinus vom Opfer der 
Eucharistie, Schaffhausen 1864. 
120 St. Augustine, Serm., 272: 
“Corpus ergo Christi si vis intelli- 
gere, Apostolum audi 
‘Vos autem estis corpus Christi et 


dicentem: 


brum corporis Christi, ut verum sit 
Amen.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVIII, 
1246).— Cfr. O. Blank, Die Lehre 
des hl. Augustin vom Sakramente 
der Eucharistie, pp. 42 sqq., Pader- 
born 1907. 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 70 


8) Another important point to be noted in in- 
terpreting obscure and ambiguous Patristic pas- 
sages on the Real Presence is this: Besides the 
three modes of being, peculiar to Christ’s Body; 
as we have explained, the Fathers distinguish 
three ways in which that Body may be con- 
sumed: (1) “capharnaitically,” as human flesh 
is eaten by cannibals; (2) “merely sacramen- 
tally,” when the recipient is in the state of mortal 
sin and therefore derives no spiritual profit from 
communion; (3) “worthily,” :. e. with full spirit- 
ual benefit. 


The first of these ways of receiving Communion was 
rejected by our Lord Himself.1#* St. Augustine does 
not hesitate to brand it as a “crime.” Christ, he says, 
could not possibly have meant that we should eat His 
Body in this grossly literal fashion. The Saviour’s 
words: “Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man, 
and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you,” he ex- 
plains as follows: ‘‘ This seems to enjoin a crime or a 
vice. It is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should 
have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we 
should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact 
that His Flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” 1? 
That St. Augustine, in writing thus, did not mean to deny 
the Real Presence is evident from his declaration that 
only he who receives Communion worthily “eats the 


121 V. supra, pp. 19 sq. et suaviter atque utiliter reconden- 
122 De Doctrina Christ., III, 24: dum memoria, quod pro nobis caro 
“ Facinus vel flagitium videtur iu- etus crucifixa et vulnerata sit.” 


bere. Figura est ergo, praecipiens Much, Ba Li SOC Viera) 
passioni dominicae communicandum 


80 THE REAL PRESENCE 


Body of Christ,” whereas he who approaches the 
Holy Table in the state of mortal sin, does not “ eat” it, 
i. e., unto salvation.’** 


ARTICLE 3 


THE ARGUMENT FROM PRESCRIPTION 


By means of the Patristic texts above quoted and other 
available data it is possible to trace the constant belief 
of the faithful in the dogma of the Real Presence through 
the Middle Ages back to the Apostolic period. This is 
called the argument from prescription. 

Every such reasoning rests on the following syllogism: 
A doctrine which has always, everywhere, and by all 
(semper, ubique et ab omnibus) been held to be of faith, 
must be divinely revealed. Now, in the Catholic Church 
such and such a doctrine has been held as an article of 
faith always, everywhere, and by all the faithful. Conse- 
quently, it is a divinely revealed truth. 

We proceed to demonstrate the minor premise of this 
syllogism with reference to the dogma of the Real Pres- 
ence. 


‘1. Tue Periop From A. D. 1900 to 800.—The 
interval that has elapsed since the Reformation 
receives its entire character from the Council of 


123 Cfr. Tr. in Ioa., 27, n. 11% communicating, viz.: purely spiritual 
“ Hoc ergo totum ad hoc nobis va- communion, see Conc. Trident., Sess. 
leat, ut carnem Christi et sanguinem XIII, cap. 8 (Denzinger-Bannwart, 
Christi non edamus tantum in sa- n. 881).— On the main topic of this 


cramento, quod et multi mali, sed subdivision cfr. Schwane, Dogmen- 
usque ad spiritus participationem geschichte der patristischen Zeit, 
manducemus et bibamus, ut in Vol. II, and ed., pp. 773 sqq., Frei- 
Domini corpore tamquam membra burg 1895; Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dog- 
maneamus.” (Migne, P. L., XXXV, matische Theologie, Vol. IX, 8.531. 
1621). —On a. fourth method of 


er 


PROOF FROM TRADITION Sr 


Trent, and hence we may here pass it over. For 
the time of the Reformation we have the testi- 
mony of Luther,’ that the whole of Western 
Christendom, down to the appearance of Carl- 
stadt, Zwingli, and Calvin, firmly believed in the 
Real Presence. 


This firm and universal belief,— omitting the tem- 
porary vagaries of Wiclif, the Albigenses, and the ad- 
herents of Pierre de Bruis,— was in uninterrupted pos- 
session since Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088), in fact, 
if we except one solitary writer (Scotus Eriugena), since 
Paschasius Radbertus (831). Berengarius died repent- 
ant in the pale of the Church, and Paschasius Radbertus 
“never attacked the substance of the dogma. We may, 
therefore, maintain that the entire Western Church has 
believed in the Real Presence for fully eleven centuries. 

But how about the Orient? Photius, when he inau- 
gurated the Greek schism in 869, took over the inalien- 
able treasure of the Catholic Eucharist. This treasure 
the Greek Church had preserved intact when the nego- 
tiations for reunion were conducted at Lyons, in 1274,? 
and at Florence, in 1439. The Greeks vigorously de- 
fended it against the machinations of the Calvinistic- 
minded Patriarch Cyril Lucaris of Constantinople 
(1629). A schismatic council held at Jerusalem under 
Dositheus, in 1672, vigorously professed its faith in the 
Real Presence? and added that the Greek Church, with- 
out being in any way influenced by the Latin, also be- 

1Wider etliche  Rottengeister, 3’AAndas Kal moayuareKas Kal 
1532. ovowdas (vere, realiter et substan- 

2See the profession of faith of — tialiter) yiverat 6 wév dpros avd 


the Emperor Michael Palaeologus To dAndes rov Kuplov owua KrX- 
(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 465). _ 


82 THE - REAL “PRESENCE 


lieved in “ Transubstantiation,’* a doctrine already 
inculcated by the Second Council of Nicea (A.D. 
787).° 

_ It follows that the Greek Church must have received 
its faith in the Real Presence and in Transubstantiation 
from a very ancient source,—a source which it had in 
common with the Latin Church long before the time of 
Photius, and that consequently this belief must be much 
older than the great schism.® 


2. THE PERIoD From A. D. 800 To 400.—Going 
still farther back we find that the Nestorians and 
Monophysites, who broke away from Rome in 
the fifth century, together with their various off- 


shoots (Chaldzans, Melchites, Syrian Jacobites, . 


Copts, Armenians, Maronites) preserved their 
faith in the Real Presence as unwaveringly as the 
Greeks, Bulgarians, and Russians. This proves 
that the dogma of the Real Presence was the com- 
mon property of the undivided ancient Church. 
It was expressly asserted and defended by the 
General Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, and by 
the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicza, A. D. 
Wares i 

John Darugensis, a Monophysitic writer of the eighth 
century, says: “He who exercises the priestly office, 


4 uerovgiweis. Paris 1670. On Cyril Lucaris and 
5Cfr. E. J. Kimmel, Monum. his sad end, see Pohle-Preuss, The 
Fidei Eccles. Orient., Vol. I, pp. Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 39 sa. 


180, 457, Jena 1850; Schelstrate, 6Cfr. Billuart, De Eucharistia, 
Acta. Orient. Eccles., Vol. I, pp. © diss. 1, art, 3, $6. 
200 sqq., Rome 1739; Perpetuité de TV. supra, pp. 21 sq. 


la Foi, Vol. I, book 12, 2nd ed., 


Ee ate ne 
‘a 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 83 


begins and repeats the divine words which bring forth 
the Body and Blood of Christ: ‘This is my Body.’ ”® 
Xenajas, another Monophysite, of the sixth century, 
after vigorously denying that there are two persons in 
Christ, avers: “ We receive the living body of the liv- 
ing God, and not the body of a mortal man, with every 
holy draught we drink the living blood of the Living 
One, and it is not the blood of a corruptible man, like 
unto ourselves.” ® 

Even Harnack is constrained to admit that “ Mono- 
physites and Orthodox have always held the same faith 
with regard to the Lord’s Supper.” ?° The Nestorians, 
it is true, regarded the man Jesus as a person sep- 
arate and distinct from the divine hypostasis of the 
Logos; but they believed in the Real Presence of 
Christ, as a moral person, in the Eucharist. Elias 
of Damascus says that all Oriental Christians “ agree 
in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Body and Blood of 
Christ.” +* 


3. THE ApostoLic AcE.—We have seen that 
the dogma of the Real Presence is at least as old 
as Nestorianism. In matter of fact it is still 
older, and traces of it can be found in the Apos- 
tolicage. This is evident from ancient liturgies, 
from representations of the Eucharist found in 
the Roman catacombs, and from other vestiges of 
its celebration in the primitive Church. 


8 Apud Franzelin, De Eucharistia, 10 Dogmengeschichte, Vol. III, 
D. 110. 2nd; ed,, pa 430s 
9Quoted by Assemani, Bibi. 11 Assemani, Bibl. Orient., Vol. 


Orient., Vol. II, p. 39. BER. DE 2097. 


84 THE REAL PRESENCE 


The ancient liturgies of the Mass will be duly | con- 
sidered in Part III of this treatise.*? 

Among the symbols employed by the early Christians 
in decorating their tombs, those which relate to the 
Eucharist hold an important place. There is, first of all, 
the famous fish symbol.?? In one of the oldest chambers 
of the Catacomb of St. Lucina, for instance, a floating 
fish, which symbolizes “ Jesus Christ, the Son of God, 
our Saviour,’ ** carries on his back the Eucharistic ele- 
ments —a basket full of bread and a glass of red wine. 
A commentary on this picture is furnished by the famous 
inscription on the Stele of Abercius, composed towards 
the close of the second century, when the Discipline of the 
Secret was still in force. The student will find this in- 
scription reproduced in the original, together with an Eng- 
lish translation, in the Catholic Encyclopedia.” We will 
quote but one sentence: “ Faith everywhere led me for- 
ward, and everywhere provided as my food a fish of 
exceeding great size, and perfect, which a holy virgin 
drew with her hands from a fountain—and this it 
[faith] ever gives to its friends to eat, it having wine of 
great virtue, and giving it mingled with bread.” 

In the so-called Greek Chapel of the cemetery of 
St. Priscilla, at Rome, Msgr. Wilpert recently discov- 
ered the most ancient of the known representations of the 
Eucharist in the Catacombs. It is a fresco known as 
“Fractio Panis,’ attributed to the early part of the 
second century. ‘‘ The scene represents seven persons at 
table, reclining on a semi-circular divan, and is depicted 

12 Infra, pp. 272 sqq. 15 Vol. I, p. go. Cfr. C. M. Kauf- - 

13 "Tx Ous. mann, Handbuch der christl. Archäol. 

14 ’Inooos Xpıorös Ocov Yıös pP. 230, Paderborn 1905; A. S. 
Zwrnp =IXOTE. On the fish Barnes, The Early Church in the 


symbol v. the Catholic Encyclopedia, Light of the Monuments, pp. 94 844-5 
So Ue 133 sqq., London 1913. 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 85 


on the wall above the apse of this little underground 
chapel, consequently in close proximity to the- place 
where once stood the altar. One of the banqueters is a 
woman. The place of honor, to the right (in cornu 
dextro), is occupied by the ‘ president of the Brethren’ 
(described about 150-155 by Justin Martyr in his ac- 
count of the Christian worship), 7. e. the bishop, or a 
priest deputed in his place for the occasion (Apol., I, 
xlvi). The ‘president’ (zpoeorés), a venerable, bearded 
personage, is depicted performing the function described 
mathe Acts of the Apostles. (JT, 42) 46; XX..7) as 
‘breaking bread;’ hence the name ‘Fractio Panis’ (7 
kAdows Tov dprov), appropriately given to the fresco by its 
discoverer,’}.1° 

As the Eucharist was intended to be a permanent in- 
stitution,” it was to be expected that traces of its cele- 
bration would occur in the very oldest Christian records. 
This expectation is realized in the Didache, which dates 
from the close of the first century, and likewise in the 
Acts of the Apostles. The phrase “ ministrantibus 
(Acırovpyovvrov) autem illis Domino” (Acts XIII, 2) can 
hardly refer to anything else than the Eucharistic 
“ liturgy.”'® This view is confirmed by the First Epistle 
to the Corinthians, where the Apostle draws a parallel 
between the Eucharistic banquet of the Christians and 
the sacrificial banquets held in honor of pagan idols, 
and forbids the Corinthians to take part in the latter, 


16M, M. Hassett in the Catholic 
Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p. 590. The 
fresco is reproduced ibid., p. 591. 
Cfr. also Jos. Wilpert, Fractio 
Panis, oder die älteste Darstellung 
des eucharistischen Opfers in der 
Cappella Greca entdeckt und erläu- 
tert, Freiburg 1895; against him, J. 
Liell, Fractio Panis oder Coena 


Coelestis? Treves 1903; cfr. also 
Wilpert, Die Malereien der Katakom- 
ben Roms, 2 vols., Freiburg 19033 
G. A. Weber, Die römischen Kata- 
komben, 3rd ed., Ratisbon 1906; F. 
X. Kraus, Roma Sotteranea, 3rd 
ed., Freiburg ı9o01. 

Pore CoriuxLl,.25 

18Cfr. Heb, X, 11. 


86 THE REAL PRESENCE : 


lest they “be made partakers with devils.”1? “The 
chalice of benediction, which we bless,” ?° he says among 
other things, “is it not fellowship in the Blood 
of Christ??! And the bread which we break,?? is it 
not fellowship in the Body of the Lord?” > Clearly, 
in St. Paul’s opinion, to partake of the Body and Blood 
of Christ (in contradistinction to partaking of the meat 
sacrificed to idols) is more than a purely ideal partici- 
pation in Christ, such as might be effected by faith or 
love;—it is a real reception of His Body and Blood 
in Holy Communion, which is the Christian sacrificial 
banquet. Only by interpreting the Apostle’s words in 
this sense are we able to understand the mystical con- 
clusion which he draws in the following verse: “ For 
we many are one bread, one body, for we all partake 
of the one bread;” ** that is to say: the unity of the 
mystic body is founded on the numerical identity of the 
Eucharistic bread with the true Body and Blood of Jesus 
Christ.?® 

Thus the argument from prescription carries us back 
to the New Testament, where the written word of God 
commingles with oral Tradition as in a common well- 
spring.?° 


Reapincs:— M. Hausher, Der hl. Paschasius Radbertus, May- 
ence 1862.— Jos. Ernst, Die Lehre des hl. Paschasius Radbertus 


19 1 Cor. X, 16-21. Erklärung der beiden Briefe an die 

20 evovyovmer, i. e. consecrate. Korinther, pp. 195 sqq., Münster 

21 Kowwvia Tov aluaros Tov 1903; cfr. also J. MacRory, The 
Xpıiorov. ' Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinth- 

22 kAwuen, i. e., break liturgically. sans, pp. 144 sqq., Dublin 1915. 

23 koıvwvla Tov owmaros Tov 26On the whole argument of 
Xpiorov. (1 Cor. X, 16). this Article cfr. H. Bruders, S. J., 

24é« Tov Evös äprov. (1Cor.X, Die Verfassung der Kirche von 
17). den ersten Jahrzehnten der apo- 


25 St. Paul’s teaching is more stolischen Wirksamkeit bis zum 
fully expounded by Al. Schäfer, Jahre 175 n. Chr., pp. 53 saq., May- 
ence 1904. 


7 
j 


PROOF FROM TRADITION 87 


von der Eucharistie, mit besonderer Riicksicht auf die Stellung 
des hl. Rhabanus Maurus und des Ratramnus zu derselben, Frei- 
burg 1896.— Aug. Nagle, Ratramnus und die hl. Eucharistie; 
zugleich eine dogmatisch-historische Würdigung des ersten 
Abendmahlstreites, Vienna 1903.— Jos. Schnitzer, Berengar von 
Tours, sein Leben und seine Lehre, 2nd ed., Stuttgart 1892.— 
Pohle, “ Paschasius Radbertus, Saint,” in the Catholic Encyclo- 
pedia. | 

On the teaching of the Fathers: *J. Döllinger, Die Lehre von 
der Eucharistie in den ersten Jahrhunderten, Mayence 1826.—H. 
Loretz, Die kath. Abendmahlslehre im Lichte der vier ersten 
Jahrhunderte der christlichen Kirche, Chur 1879.— I. Marquardt, 
S. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus Baptismi, Chrismatis, Eucharistiae 
Mysteriorum Interpres, Leipsic 1882.— J. Corblet, Histoire Dog- 
matique, Liturgique et Archéologique du Sacrement de lEucha- 
ristie, Paris 1885.— Aug. Nagle, Die Eucharistielehre des hl. 
Johannes Chrysostomus, Freiburg 1900.— A. Struckmann, Die Ge- 
genwart Christi in der hl. Eucharistie nach den schriftlichen 
Quellen der vornizänischen Zeit, Vienna 1905.—D. Stone, A His- 
tory of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, 2 vols., London 
1909.— G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six 
Centuries of the Church, St. Louis 1913—The New York Re- 
view, art. “The Real Presence in the Fathers,” Vol. II (1907), 
Nos. 1 and 2— P. Pourrat, The Teaching of the Fathers on the 
Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, New York 1908.— 
B. J. Otten, S. J., A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. J, 
St. Louis 1917, pp. 91 sqq., 131 sq., 146 sq., 167 sq., 178 sq., 196 
Ba, 207,352" $q. 


GHAP TER AY 
THE TOTALITY OF THE REAL PRESENCE 


There are present in the Eucharist not only the Body 
and Blood of Christ, but also His Soul and Divinity. This 
dogma has never been attacked by heretics, and we may 
therefore limit ourselves to a summary demonstration of 
it in the form of four theses.! 


Thesis I: The Holy Eucharist really, truly, and 
substantially contains the Body and Blood, together 
with the Soul and the Divinity-of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and consequently the whole Christ. 


This proposition embodies an article of faith. 

Proof. Ex vi verborum, or by virtue of the 
consecration, that only is made present which is 
expressed by the words of institution, namely, the 
Body and Blood of Christ. But by reason of a 
natural concomitance (per concomitantiam) there 
becomes simultaneously present all that which is 
physically inseparable from the parts just named, 
vis.: the Soul of Christ, and together with it, His 
whole Humanity, and, by virtue of the Hypostatic 
Union, also His Divinity.2 Hence Christ is 


1Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., pp. 48 sqq.; Suarez, De - Euch., 
34, .00.,76, art: 14. disp. 51, sect. 6, n. 4. 
2Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 


88 


POLARITY OF (LAE REAF FRESENCE SO 


present in the Blessed Sacrament wholly and en- 
tirely, with His Flesh and Blood, Body and Soul, 
Humanity and Divinity— "Christus totus in 
toto.” The Council of Trent defines: “If any- 
one denieth that in the Sacrament of the most 
Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and 
substantially the Body and Blood together with 
the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ,- 
and consequently the whole Christ, . . . let him 
be anathema.” ® 

a) In the same discourse in which He says: 
“He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 
hath everlasting life,” * our Divine Lord also de- 
clares: “He that eateth me, the same also shall 
live by me.” 


f 
4 


To eat the Flesh and Blood of Christ, therefore, is 
to eat Christ whole and entire. By virtue of the words 
of institution (er vi verborum) only the Body of Christ 
is made present; but it is His real, living Body, hypo- 
statically united to the Logos, with His Soul and Divin- 
ity,— Christ whole and entire. The same applies to the 
Precious Blood. 


b) This totality of the Real Presence of our 
Lord in the Holy Eucharist was the constant 


8 Sess; “XIIT ‘can. 22 °° St quis. ma. sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 


negaverit, in ss. Eucharistiae sa- 
cramento contineri vere, realiter et 
substantialiter corpus et sangui- 
nem und cum anima et divinitate 
Domini nosiri Iesu Christi ac pro- 
inde totum Christum, ... anathe- 


883). 

4John VI, 55: ‘“ Qui manducat 
meam carnem, et bibit meum sangul- - 
nem, habet vitam aeternam.” 

5 John SN be 58.0 sy eb gu 
manducat me (ne), et ipse vivet 
propter me.’ 


90 THE REAL PRESENCE 


property of Tradition. The Fathers would have 
raised the charge of “sarcophagy” against any- 
one who would have dared to assert that in holy 
Communion merely the flesh or the blood of 
Christ is received. : 


St. Cyril of Jerusalem says that whoever partakes of 
the Eucharist becomes by that very act a “ Christo- 
phoros,” 7. e. Christ-bearer. St. Cyril of Alexandria in- 
sists on the vivifying effects of the Flesh of Christ in the 
soul of the communicant.° St. John Damascene sums 
up the teaching of the Greek Fathers as follows: 
“Bread and wine is not the type of the Body and Blood 
of Christ; far from it; it is the Body itself, endowed 
with Divinity, for Christ did not say, ‘ This is the type 
of my Body,’ but ‘This is my Body.’ ”? 


c) Although, absolutely speaking, it is within 
the power of almighty God to separate the Body, 
Blood, Soul, and Logos, yet they are actually in- 
separable because of the indissolubility of the 
divine and human natures in the Hypostatic 
Union, which is an article of faith.’ 


Note, however, that the concrete manner in which our 
Lord becomes present in the Eucharist depends entirely 
on the condition of His Body at the moment of conse- 
cration. The sacred Body may be in one of three states: 
the state of mortality, that of death, and the transfigured 
state in which it arose from the grave. When Christ 

6Apud Migne, P. G., LXXII, _ tic testimonies, supra, Ch. I, Sect. 2, 
451. Art.) 2. 


7 De Fide Orth., IV, 13 (Migne, 8 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 
P. G., XCIV, 1147).— Other Patris- pp. 166 sqq. 


Pas 


TOTALITY OF THE REAL PRESENCE. ~<o1 


consecrated at the Last Supper, He became truly and en- 
tirely present in the sacred species, but His Body was 
there only as a body capable of dying, and His Blood 
as blood capable of being shed. In case the Apostles had 
celebrated the Eucharist during the triduum mortis, dur- 
ing which time Christ’s Body rested in the tomb, there 
would have been present in the Sacred Host only the 
bloodless, inanimate Body of Christ, and in the Chalice 
‚only the Blood separated from His Body and absorbed 
by the earth as it was shed,— both the Body and the 
Blood, however, remaining hypostatically united to His 
Divinity, while His Soul, which sojourned in Limbo, 

would have remained entirely excluded from the Eucha- 
_ristic presence? Since the Resurrection Christ is 
present in the. Eucharist in the same manner in which 
He sitteth at the right hand of the Father in Heaven, i. e., 
as one glorified, who “ dieth no more.” 1° 

In the light of these considerations the totality of the 
Real Presence may be explained as follows. The Divinity 
as such, being substantially omnipresent,!! cannot be 
made present by virtue of the words of consecration. 
Hence these words must effect a real presence of Christ’s 
Humanity, that is to say, primarily of His Body (Flesh 
and Blood), for it would be absurd to convert the species 
into His bodyless Soul for the purpose of bodily consump- 
tion. Only the Flesh and Blood of Christ can be con- 
sumed under the appearances of bread and wine. But by 
reason of a natural concomitance there becomes simultane- 
ously present with the Body all that which is physically 
inseparable from it, 7. e., the Soul, the Humanity, and, 

9 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 11 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Goa His 


83,1 qu. 76, drt—1; ad “i. Knowability, Essence, and Attri- 
10 Rom. VI, 9. : butes, pp. 321 sqq. 


92 THE REAL PRESENCE 


by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, also the Divinity, in a 
word — Christ whole and entire. ' | 
This twofold mode of coming into being, while not an 
article of faith, is part of the Church’s traditional teach- 
ing and cannot be denied without great temerity and 
danger to the faith.” The Tridentine Council says: 
“ This faith has ever been in the Church of God, that 
immediately after the consecration the veritable Body of 
our Lord and His veritable Blood, together with His 
Soul and Divinity, are under the species of bread and 
wine ; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and 
the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of 
the words: but the Body itself under the species of 
wine, and the Blood under the species of bread, and 
the Soul under both, by the force of that natural con- 
nexion and concomitance whereby the parts of Christ 
our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead to die no 
more, are united together; and the Divinity, furthermore, 
on account of the admirable Hypostatic Union thereof 
with His Body and Soul.” +* This definition represents 
the Hypostatic Union not as a special kind of produc- 
tion, side by side with that per concomitantiam, but 
merely as its concrete mode in regard to the Divinity of 
Christ. Nevertheless, it is probable that the Council 
chose this expression purposely to exclude the notion 
that by virtue of the words of consecration the Father, 


12 Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. pus sub specie vini et sanguinem 
51, sect. 3,0. TI. sub specie panis animamque sub 
13 Sess. XIII, cap. 3: “Semper utraque vi naturalis illius conne- 


haec fides in Ecclesia Dei fuit statim 
post consecrationem verum Domini 
nostri corpus verumque eius san- 
guinem sub panis et vini specie und 
cum ipsius anima et divinitate exi- 
stere; sed corpus quidem sub specie 
panis et sanguinem sub vini specie 
ex vi verborum, ipsum autem cor- 


zionis et concomitantiae, qua partes 
Christi Domini, qui iam ex mortuts 
resurrexit, non amplius moriturus, 
inter se copulantur; divinitatem 
porro propter admirabilem illam eius 
cum corpore et anima hypostaticam 
unionem.”’ (Denzinger-Bannwart, 
n. 876). 


TOTALITY OF THE REAL PRESENCE 93 


too, and the Holy Ghost, become present by concomi- 
tance. For this reason we cannot accept the opinion of 
those who hold that the other two Divine Persons are 
sacramentally present together with the Son in the Holy 
Eucharist. Of course all three are present by virtue of 
the divine attribute of omnipresence, by their consub- 
stantiality, and, more especially, by virtue of the Trini- 
tarian Perichoresis or mutual inexistence; '* but as only 
the Logos assumed flesh and blood in the Hypostatic 
Union, He alone can be present with flesh and blood such 
as the sacramental species signify.'? 


Thesis II: Christ is present whole and entire under 
each species. 


This is also de fide. 

Proof. The meaning is: We do not receive 
one part of Christ in the Sacred Host, and the 
other in the Chalice, as if our reception of the 
whole Christ depended on partaking of both 
species. - Contrariwise, under the appearance of 
bread alone as well as under the appearance of 
wine alone we receive Christ whole and entire— 
Christus totus sub alterutra specie. This truth 
explains the permissibility and propriety of Com- 
munion under one kind,'® and is an article of 
faith, The Decretum pro Armenis defines: 
“Christ is contained whole and entire under the 


14 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 8, sect. 


Trinity, pp. 281 saq. Onn 120.2504, 
15 Cfr. Billuart, De Eucharistia, 16,.C#r. Sidney Fes Smith, So], 
dissert. 4, art. 1, sub finem; De Communion under One Kind, Lon: 


don 1911, pp. 2 sqq. 


94 THE REAL PRESENCE 


species of bread, and whole and entire under the 
species of wine.” And the Council of Trent: 
“It is most true that as much is contained under 
either species as under both.” *7 

a) Ihis dogma has its Scriptural basis in the 
fact that St. Paul attaches the same guilt “of the 
Body and the Blood of the Lord” to the unworthy 
eating and drinking in the disjunctive as in the 
copulative sense. Cfr. 1 Cor. XI, 27: “Who- 
ever eateth the bread or drinketh of the cup of 
the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body 
and of the blood of the Lord.” 1 Cor. XI, 29: 
“For he that eateth and drinketh without distin- 
guishing the body [from other food], eateth and 
drinketh judgment to himself.” ** 


The Fathers testify that the glorified Saviour is pres- 
ent whole and entire on our altars. The Liturgy of St. 
Chrysostom says: “The Lamb of God, Son of the 
Father, is broken but not diminished, continually eaten 
but not consumed.” 1? Hence, wherever the glorified 


17 Decr. pro Armenis: “Totus ducat et bibit (écOiwy Kal rivwv) 


Christus continetur sub specie panis, 


et totus sub specie vini.” (Den- 
zinger-Bannwart, n. 698).— Conc. 
Tyid., Sess; XIII, cap. ‚3: - ©. Qua- 


propter verissimum est tantundem 
sub alteruträ specie atque sub 
utraque contineri.” (Denzinger- 
Bannwart, n. 876). 

18% Cor. XL,-273 “ Itaque aui- 
cungue manducaverit .. . vel biberit 
(eodin ... % mivyn) indigne, reus 
erit corporis et sanguinis (rov 
owuaros Kal Tov alwaros) Domini.” 
—1 Cor. XI, 29: “ Qui enim man- 


indigne, iudicium sibi manducat et 
bibit.”— We have adopted the 
Westminster version. For a fuller 
explanation of the texts quoted see 
Al. Schäfer, Erklärung der beiden 
Briefe an die Korinther, p. 235, 
Münster 1903; Jos. MacRory, The 
Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthi- 
ans, pp. 176 sqq., Dublin 1915. 

19 * Frangitur et dividitur Agnus 
Dei, Filius Patris, qui frangitur, at 
non comminuitur, qut semper com- 
editur et non consumitur.” (Goar, 
Eucholog., 2nd ed., p. 65.) 


TOLALLIE OR THE Ihe PRESE INGE orgs 


Body or Blood of Christ is, there is Christ whole and en- 
tire, with Body and Soul, Divinity and Humanity.? 


b) This second thesis is substantially contained 
in the first. 


While it is true that, by virtue of the words of con- 
secration (vi verborum), there is made present under the 
bread only the Body of Christ without His Blood, and 
under the wine only the Blood of Christ without His 
Body,”* yet from the law of natural concomitance, which 
we explained above,” it follows that the glorified Body of 
Christ can not exist without His Blood, nor the living 
Body without His Soul, nor the sacred Humanity thus 
constituted without the Logos, with which it is hypo- 
statically united; and consequently, Christ is present 
whole and entire both in the Sacred Host apart from the 
Chalice, and in the contents of the Chalice apart from 
the Sacred Host. 


Thesis III: When the Sacred Host is broken into 
pieces, or the consecrated contents of the Chalice are 
consumed in small quantities, Christ is wholly and en- 
tirely present in each particle and in every drop. 


This proposition likewise embodies an article 
of faith. 

Proof. The Decretum pro Armenis says: 
“Christ is entirely present in every particle of 
the consecrated Host and of the consecrated 


20A number of other Patristic 21 Body and Blood form a con- 


- passages bearing on this point will trast of considerable importance in 


be found infra, Part II, Ch. I, Sect. regard to the Sacrifice of the Mass. 
2, Art.. 2— See also J. Hoffmann, V. infra, Part. III. 

Die Laienkommunion bis zum Tri- 22 Thesis I. 

dentinum, Spires ı89r, x 


96 THE, REAL PRESENCE 


wine, when separated (separatione factä), that is 
to say, when the Host is broken into particles or 
the wine consumed in small quantities.”” The 
Council of Trent defines: “If anyone denieth 
that in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist 
the whole Christ is contained under each species, 
and under every part of each species, when sep- 
arated, let him be anathema.” ** 


a) It is improbable that Christ at the Last Supper con- 
secrated separately each particle of the bread He had 
broken. The contents of the Chalice He gave entire to 
His disciples, to be partaken of distributively. Matth. 
XXVI, 27: “ Taking the chalice, He gave thanks, and 
gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.” Mark XIV, 
23: “And they all drank of it.” 


b) The teaching of Tradition is evident from 
the utterances of the Fathers and the liturgical 
practice of the Church. 


It is only on the basis of the Tridentine dogma that 
we can understand why St. Cyril of Jerusalem warned 
communicants to be scrupulously careful in conveying the 
Sacred Host to their mouths. “ After thou hast sanctified 
thine eyes by contact with the sacred Body,” he says, “ in 
proceeding to partake of it, beware lest some particle fall 
to the ground. For that which perishes thou shalt regard 

23 Decret. pro Armenis: ‘Sub  mnegaverit in venerabili sacramento 
qualibet quoque parte hostiae conse- Eucharistiae sub unaquaque specie 
cratae et vini consecrati separatione et sub singulis cuiusque species 
facta totus est Christus.” (Den- partibus separatione facta totum 


zinger-Bannwart, n. 698). Christum contineri, anathema sit.” 
24 Sess. XIII, can. 3: “Si quis (Denzinger-Bannwart, n, 885). 


07 re Ge a 


. a ee Ar nn 
er hee da ee Tn, cd 


TO PALEPY OF Urn REST PRESENCE -,09% 


as if thou hadst lost one of thine own members. If some 
one had presented thee with gold coins, wouldst thou not 
preserve them with the greatest care, lest they be lost? 
- With how much greater caution shouldst thou see to it 
that not even a crumb is lost of that which is far more 
precious than gold or jewels.” 2° The Pseudo-Dionysius 
writes: “ When [the priest] breaks the indivisible bread 
into many parts,?® and distributes the entire contents of 
the chalice among all," he symbolically multiplies and 
distributes merely the oneness.” 78 St. Cesarius of Arles 
(+ 542) teaches: ‘‘ The Body dispensed by the priest is 
as much in each particle as it is in the whole. .. . Each 
single recipient obtains nothing less than all [obtain] to- 
gether: one has the whole, two have the whole, many 
receive the whole without diminution.” ?® Eutychius, 
Patriarch of Byzantium (+ 582), writes: “ Each [com- 
municant] receives the whole sacred Body and precious 
Blood of the Lord, even though he is given but a part 
thereof ;*° for it divides itself ®* undivided *? among 
alla 

The same truth is expressed even more clearly in the 
ancient liturgies. Thus we read in the Syrian rite: “It 
is Christ our Lord who, for the forgiveness of sins and 
unto eternal life, is broken and not divided,** distributed 
to the faithful and not consumed.” The Church has 
always permitted fragments of the Sacred Host to be 


25 Catech. Mystag., V, n. 21. 
26 els moNAd Sredwv. 


universi: totum unus, totum duo, 
totum plures sine diminutione per- 


27 mäcı Karapeploas. cipiunt.” (Migne, P. L., LXVII, 
28 nv Evöornra mAnOvver Kal 1054). 

Ötaueveı (De Eccl. Hier, c. 3 80 Kay el uepos rovTwy d5éEnrat. 

§ 12). 81 nepiferat. 


29 Hom., 5: “Corpus sacerdote 
dispensante tantum est in exiguo, 
quantum esse constat in toto... 
Nihil minus habent singuli quam 


32 aueplorws. 

33 Serm. de Pasch., n. 2. 

34.6 pedtfomevos Kal un mepıföue- 
vos. 


98 THE REAL PRESENCE 


given in Holy Communion, and at one time allowed the 
faithful to partake of the precious Blood from one and the 
same chalice.*® 


Thesis IV: Even before the actual division of the 
sacred species Christ is wholly and entirely present in 
each particle of the Host and in each drop of the 
collective contents of the Chalice. 


Unlike the three preceding theses, this one em- 
bodies merely a theological conclusion. 

Proof. A few older Scholastic theologians, 
notably William of Auxerre®® and Albertus 
Magnus,** denied this conclusion. They con- 
tended that, as an unbroken mirror shows forth 
but one image of the sun, whilst a broken one 
reflects as many as there are fragments of glass, 
so Christ is wholly and entirely present in the 
fragments of the sacred Host only when it is 
broken after the consecration. 


Dominicus Soto claims that this opinion is heretical. 
But if it were, the Tridentine Council would not have 
added to its definition, quoted above, the phrase “ separa- 
tione facta.’ ** Nevertheless our thesis can only claim 
the value of a theological conclusion, though Vasquez, 
Suarez, and De Lugo insist that it may not be rejected 
without error.®® That the Council of Trent did not 
mean to favor the opposing view when it adopted the 


85 Cfr. the hymn “ Lauda Sion.” 38 Supra, Thesis III. 
86 Summa, P. 4, tr. 5, c. 4. 89 Sententia erronea vel errori 
37 Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 13, ~ proxima., 

art. 11. 


4 
Ji Br me an ei 


SUM lea 


NE eee 


TOTALITY OF THE REAL PRESENCE 99 


words “separatione factd,’ is apparent from its pre- 
liminary debates on the subject,* and from the note- 
worthy circumstance that the phrase “ separatione facta” 
does not appear in Chapter III of Sessio XIII, which 
reads: “ Wherefore it is most true that as much is con- 
tained under either species as under both; for Christ 
whole and entire is under the species of bread and under 
any part whatsoever of that species [here the restrictive 
clause separatione factä is omitted] ; likewise the whole 
[Christ] is under the species of wine and under the parts 
iereüf. ** 


a) The whole Body of Christ, and conse- 
quently Christ in His entirety, is present wherever 
the substance of bread was present before the 
consecration, because Transubstantiation changes 
the whole substance of the bread into the: sub- 
stance of the Body. Now, the substance of the 
bread before consecration is present not only in 
_ the totality of the host, but in every one of its 
parts, whether separated or united. Conse- 
quently, the whole Body of Christ, 7. e. Christ 
whole and entire, is present in each particle of the 
host even before it is broken. The same reason- 
ing applies to the wine. 

This positive argument can be strengthened by 
a negative one. If Christ were not present en- 


40 Cfr. Pallavicini, Hist. Conc. integer Christus sub panis specie et 
Trident., Vol. XII, 7, 7. sub quavis ipsius speciei parte, 
41Sess. XIII, cap. 3: “Qua- totus idem sub vini specie et sub eius 
propter verissimum est, tantundem  partibus existit.” (Denzinger-Bann- 
sub alterutrd specie atque sub wart, n. 876). 
utrdque contineri; totus enim -et 


100 THE ‘REAL PRESENCE 


tirely in every single particle of the Eucharistic 
species, even before their division, we should be 
forced to conclude that it is the process of divid- 
ing the species which effects the totality of His 
presence, whereas the Church plainly teaches that 
the sole operative cause of the real and total 
Presence is Transubstantiation.*” 

b) This last conclusion directs the attention of 
the philosophic enquirer to a mode of existence 
which is peculiar to the Eucharistic Body, though 
contrary to the ordinary laws of nature. 


_ The Body of Christ is present under the Eucharistic 
species, not after the manner of material bodies, but 
after the manner of spirits. This truth was well known 
to the ancient Fathers. Thus St. Ambrose says: “The 
body of God is a spiritual body.” #* Reserving the specu- 
lative discussion of this mystery for a later chapter,** we 
here confine ourselves to a brief explanation. 

The Body of Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist in 
much the same way as the human soul is present in the 
body. 

(1) As the spiritual soul dwells in the whole body, so 
the Eucharistic body of our Lord is present in the sacred 
host as a whole. 

(2) As the spiritual soul dwells in every part of the 
body with the whole of its substance, so the whole Body 
of Christ is present in the sacred species, not merely in 
their totality, but in every particle thereof. 

42 Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, XVI, 408): “Corpus Det corpus 
disp. 52, sect. 2; De Lugo, De Eu- est spirituale.” 


charistia, disp. 8, sect. 3. 44 V, infra, Ch. V, pp. 143 sqq. 
43 De Myst., IX, 58 (Migne, P. L., 


TOTALITV OR THE REAL PRESENCE “10% 


(3) As the presence of the soul in all the members of 
the body does not result in a multiplicity of separate and 
distinct presences, so neither is the Eucharistic presence of 
the Body in the sacred species limited to the continuous (as 
yet unbroken) species as a whole, whereas before the 
division of the species it is present in the different par- 
ticles only inadequately. | 

This third analogy will help to clear away a difficulty 
arising from the infinite divisibility of material substances. 

It would be foolish to say that the Body of Christ 
is present in the .undivided host as many times as the 
host is capable of being broken into separate particles. 
Neither has the human soul as many lives or existences in 
the body as the body has members animated by the soul. 
For the soul has only one adequate mode of being in 
relation to the whole body, and a number of inadequate 
modes in relation to its various members. Thus the Body 
of Christ is adequately present but once in the whole of the 
Sacred Host, inadequately, however, many times in its 
different parts. “ Number follows division,” says St. 
Thomas, “and therefore so long as quantity remains 
actually undivided, neither is the substance of anything 
several times under its proper dimensions, nor is Christ’s 
Body several times under the dimensions of the bread; 
and consequently not an infinite number of times, but just 
as many times as it is [actually] divided into parts.” * 


45 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 76, art. mensionibus propriis neque corpus 
3, ad 1: “Numerus sequitur divi- Christi sub dimensionibus panis. 
sionem et ideo, quamdiu quantitas Et per consequens neque infinities, 
manet indivisa actu, neque substan- sed totics in quot partes [actu] 


tia alicuius rei est pluries sub di- dividitur.” 


CHAPTER III 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION, OR THE OPERATIVE 
CAUSE OF THE REAL PRESENCE 


We have seen how Christ is present in the Holy 
Eucharist. The question arises: What causes 
His presence? Theansweris: Transubstantia- 
tion. 

We shall first explain the nature of Transub- 
stantiation and the history of the term in Cath- 
olic theology (Sect. 1), and then prove the dog- 
matic teaching of the Church in regard to this 
mystery from Scripture and Tradition (Sect. 2). 


102 


a ee ee eee, Ee ae be Cee Te er Fa a Ces Rea See a cee 


SEC PION t 
DEFINITION OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION 


To arrive at a correct idea of the nature of Transub- 
stantiation, we must first examine the underlying notions 
of change and conversion. 


I. CONVERSION.—A change (mutatio, “Mot- 
wos—motus, Kumes) is a transition from one 
state to another. Conversion (conversio, nera- 
Body) is something more than that. It is a 
“transition of one thing into another thing in 
some aspect of being.” ' 


a) Ina mere change, one of the two extremes may be 
expressed negatively. Conversion, on the other hand, 
requires two positive extremes, each of which must be 
related to the other as thing to thing, and they must 
have so intimate a connexion with each other that the 
last extreme (terminus ad quem) begins to exist only as 
the first (terminus a quo) ceases. 

If a change affects the substance of a thing (as, in- the 
metabolic processes of the human body) it is called sub- 
stantial; if merely its accidents (as when water turns 
into ice, or a block of marble is fashioned into a statue), 
it is called accidental. If a change falls within the ordi- 
nary laws of human experience, it is natural; if it tran- 


1 Conversio est transitus unius rei in aliam sub aliquäa ratione entis. 
103 


104 THE REAL: PRESENCE 


scends these laws, as e. g. the conversion of water into 
wine wrought by our Saviour at Cana, it is supernatural. 


b) Conversion, being a “transition of one 
thing into another thing in some aspect of being,” 
requires two objects: that which is changed 
(terminus a quo) and that into which it is 
changed (terminus ad quem). It further re- 
quires an intrinsic connexion between the disap- 
pearance of the one and the appearance of the 
other, and generally also a third element, known 
as the commune tertium, which, even after the 
conversion has taken place, unites the two ex- 
tremes with each other. 


‘a) Every conversion must have two extremes, for a 
thing cannot be converted into itself. What is some- 
times called “reconversion” is, generally speaking, 
either a mere change in the sense of a return to a previ- 
ously existing state (as in the regular alternation of day 
and night) or a true conversion with two distinct ex- 
tremes (as in some chemical processes). 

ß) In every conversion there must be an intrinsic con- 
nexion between the disappearance of the one extreme and 
the appearance of the other, because a conversion is ef- 
fected not by two independent and unconnected acts, but 
by one and the same act which causes the terminus a quo 
to cease to exist and calls the terminus ad quem into be- 
ing, in such a way that the one is the cause of the other. 
This intrinsic connexion may be either physical or moral. 

y) There is further required a common element that 
unites the two extremes (commune tertium). In every 
true conversion this condition must be fulfilled: “ What 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION 105 


was formerly A is now B.” The question immediately 
arises: Must this common element be something physical 
and real, as when food is converted into living tissue, or 
may it be a mere ens rationis? On this point Catholic 
theologians disagree. Suarez? and De Lugo? insist that 
it must be a physical reality, whereas others hold 
with Pallavicini* that the continued existence of the 
logical relations between the two terms is sufficient, be- 
cause otherwise it would be difficult to see what physical 
reality could have been left behind as tertium cominune, 
e. g. in the conversion by Moses of a rod into a serpent. 
Whilst this is true enough, Franzelin® is undoubtedly 
right in saying, on the other hand, that the continued 
existence of a common physical reality is a conditio sine 
qua non of conversion in the complete sense of the term. 


c) Two important questions here suggest 
themselves: (1) Must there be a relation of 
contrary opposition between the two extremes of 
a conversion? and (2) Must the last extreme have 
been previously non-existent? 


(1) There need not necessarily be a relation of con- 
trary opposition between the two extremes, because a 
conversion, properly speaking, is not effected by virtue 
of extremes that mutually exclude each other, as e. g. 
love excludes hate, heat excludes cold, etc., but merely 
requires two positive extremes, while in case of contrary 
opposition one extreme must always be negative, or at 
least privative. 

(2) The second question amounts to this: Can an ex- 

2 De Eucharistia, disp. 50, sect. 2, 4Curs. Theol., VI, 19, 257. 


n. 16. E 5 De Eucharistia, thes. 13. 
8 De Eucharistia, disp. 7, sect. 1. 


106 THE REAL PRESENCE 


isting terminus a quo be converted into an existing ter- 
minus ad quem? This is not so easy to answer. ‚In the 
miracle of Cana, for instance, was the wine necessarily a 
new creation, and was the water irrevocably gone? In- 
deed, if the act of conversion is not to be a mere process 
of substitution, as in sleight-of-hand performances, the 
terminus ad quem must unquestionably in some manner 
begin to exist just as the terminus a quo must in some 
manner really cease to exist. On this point all theolo- 
gians are unanimous. The deeper question is: Does the 
production of the terminus ad quem require a new crea- 
tion, strictly so called, or is the idea of conversion fully 
realized when a thing which already exists in substance 
merely acquires a new mode of being? A careful con- 
sideration will show that the last-mentioned requirement 
is quite sufficient, and that it is not necessary to postulate 
the previous non-existence of the terminus ad quem. Our 
Lord assures His disciples: ‘‘ God is able of these stones 
to raise up children to Abraham.” ° Were these children 
pre-existent? Assuming (a false though not impossible 
assumption) that the souls of men exist before they 
are infused into their bodies, would the idea of conversion 
be realized if an already existing soul, as terminus ad 
quem, were to enter into a corpse and animate it as its 
substantial form? In the resurrection, the long decayed 
bodies of the dead will be truly converted into bodies 
of the risen by their previously existing souls, just 
as at death they were truly converted into corpses by 
the departure of these souls. Hence the disappearance of 
the terminus a quo need not spell annihilation, nor is the 
appearance of the terminus ad quem necessarily equiva- 
lent to creation, but it is sufficient that the former extreme 


6 Matth, III, 9. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION 107 


cease and the latter begin to exist merely in a certain 
respect (secundum quid). 

In either extreme of a conversion theologians further 
distinguish a twofold term: the terminus totalis and the 
terminus formalis. If we call the thing itself which dis- 
appears or comes into existence, the terminus totalis, and 
the same thing in so far as it disappears or ceases to 
exist, the terminus formalis, it is manifest that the 
terminus formalis a quo must disappear in every true 
conversion ; but it does not follow that the terminus totalis 
a quo must cease to exist entirely. All that is required is 
“that it simply cease to exist in some respect (secundum 
quid). Inmatter of fact its place is taken by the terminus 
totalis ad quem. This need not, however, involve the 
terminus formalis ad quem, which may have existed pre- 
viously. 


2. SUBSTANTIAL CoNVERSION.—A substantial 
conversion (conversio substantialis, kerovaiwaıs) is 
that species of change by which one substance be- 
comes another substance. 


This definition excludes all merely accidental conver- 
sions, whether natural or supernatural. 

A substantial conversion is either total or partial, ac- 
cording as it affects the whole substance of a thing or only 
an essential part thereof. A conversio substantialis 
‘totalis, in the Aristotelian sense, is a transition of the 
entire substance of a material thing, both as to matter 
and form, into the substance of another. A conversio 
substantialis partialis is a transition of either the matter 
or the form of a composite thing into that of another. 
The former is called conversio materialis, the latter con- 
versio formalis. Were my body, for example, suddenly 


108 THE REAL PRESENCE 


converted into a new body, the soul remaining unchanged, 
this would be a conversio materialis. The conversio 
formalis effects a conversion of the substantial form only 
and leaves the protyle (materia prima) unchanged. 
Both kinds of conversion are rightly called substantial 
because they affect the substance of things. The cir- 
cumstance that they are merely partial must not lead us 
to confound them, or put them on the same level, with 
merely accidental conversions, which change only the ex- 
ternal form of material things (e.g. the metamorphosis of 
insects, the transfiguration of Christ on Mount Thabor). 

Transubstantiation differs from all other species of 
substantial conversion in this, that the substance is con- 
verted into another substance, while the accidents re- 
main unchanged. Thus, if wood were miraculously con- 
verted into iron and the substance of the latter remained 
hidden under the appearance of the former, we should 
have a true transubstantiation. 


3. TRANSUBSTANTIATION.—The change that 
takes place in the Eucharist is precisely such a 
conversion of one substance into another. The 
Council of Trent defines “that by the consecra- 
tion of the bread and of the wine a conversion is 
made of the whole substance of the bread into 
the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, 
and of the whole substance of the wine into the 
substance of His Blood; which conversion is by 
the Holy Catholic Church suitably and properly 
called Transubstantiation.” * 


7 Sess. XIII, cap. 4: “Sancta fieri totius substantiae pants in sub- 
haec Synodus declarat, per conse- stantiam corporis Christi Domini 
crationem panis et vini conversionem nostri et totius substantiae vini in 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION 109 


a) Inthe Holy Eucharist, therefore, we have a 
true conversion. 


There are, first, the two extremes of bread and wine as 
the terminus a quo, and the Body and Blood of Christ as 
the terminus ad quem. There is, secondly, an intimate 
connexion between the cessation of the one extreme and 
_the appearance of the other, in that both events result not 
from two independent processes (as e. g. annihilation 
and creation), but from one single act. At the words of 
consecration the substance of the bread and wine vanishes 
to make room-for the Body and Blood of Christ. Lastly, 
there is a commune tertium in the unchanged appearances 
of the terminus a quo. Christ in assuming a new mode 
of being, retains these appearances, in order to enable us 
to partake of His Body and Blood. The terminus 
totalis a quo is not annihilated, because the appearances 
of bread and wine continue. What disappears is the 
substance of bread and wine, which constitutes the ter- 
minus formalis a quo. Nor can the terminus totalis ad 
quem be said to be newly created, because the Body and 
Blood of Christ, and in fact the whole Christ, as terminus 
formalis ad quem, pre-exist both in His Divinity (from 
all eternity), and in His Humanity (since the Incarna- 
tion). What begins to exist anew in the terminus ad 
quem is not our Lord as such, but merely a sacramental 
mode of being, in other words, the “ an of the 
Body and Blood of Christ.” 


| b) The Tridentine Council defines that “the 
total substance of the bread and of the wine is 


substantiam sanguinis eius, quae con- substantiatio est appellata.”’ (Den: 
versio convenienter et proprie zinger-Bannwart, n. 877), 
a sancta catholica Ecclesia trans- 


110 THE REAL PRESENCE 


converted into the substance of the Body and 
Blood of our Lord,” and hence Transubstantia- 
tion is a conversio substantialis totalis, as ex- 
plained above.” | 


This fact raises Transubstantiation far above all other 
species of conversion, and, in conjunction with certain 
other qualities yet to be mentioned, places it in a 
category of its own. 

a) All other conversions with which we are familiar 
are merely partial, affecting either the matter or the 
form. Transubstantiation alone affects both matter and 
form, i. e. the total substance of the Eucharistic elements. 

8) In no other kind of conversion do the accidents 
remain as commune tertium, whereas in the Eucharist, 
after Transubstantiation, the true Body and Blood of 
Christ exist under the appearances of bread and wine in. 
such a manner that the relation of inherence is entirely 
suspended and the Eucharistic Christ is not degraded to 
the level of a subjectum inhaesionis for the accidents of 
bread and wine. 

y) In every merely natural conversion the change takes 
place gradually, in proportion as the subject becomes dis- 
posed or fit to receive its new form, whereas the Transub- 
stantiation of bread and wine in the Eucharist is effected 
in an instant. 

These considerations show that Transubstantiation is a 
supernatural and altogether miraculous process, which 
must remain a mystery to the human mind.? 


bd 


c) The term “Transubstantiation,” applied to 
this unique conversion, is very appropriate, as it 


ce 


8V. supra, No. 2. 2: ‘. .. mirabilem illam et singu- 
9 Cfr. Conc. Trid,, Sess. XIII, can. larem conversionem.” 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION III 


etymologically includes the notion of a total and 
substantial change and excludes that of a merely 
accidental conversion. For while the substance 
of bread and wine is converted into the Body and 
Blood of Christ, the accidents remain unchanged. 


3 


The word “ Transubstantiation ” was unknown to the 
ancient Fathers, but it is so accurately descriptive of the 
conversion that takes place in the Holy Eucharist, and 
forms so powerful a bulwark of the true faith against 
heresies, that the Church has adopted it into her theo- 
logical terminology. Hildebert of Tours (about 1097 ),’° 
a vigorous opponent of Berengarius,'' seems to have 
been the first writer to employ the word. His ex- 
ample was followed by Stephen of Autun (+ 1139), 
Gaufred (1188), Peter of Blois (+ about 1200), Alanus 
of Lille (+ 1203), and others, and by several ecumenical 
councils, notably the Fourth Council of the Lateran 
(1215) #2 and that of Lyons (1274).'? It was finally 
stamped with official approval at Trent. Suarez is there- 
fore right in saying that to reject this term as “ inappro- 
priate or barbarous ” would be foolhardy and offensive, 
and would incur the suspicion of heresy.** 

The Greek schismatic Church adopted the equivalent 


10 Serm., 93: “ verbum transsub- 
stantiationis.” 

11 On Berengarius, see Ch. I, Sect. 
POSEINTt oT. 

12 Cap. “ Firmiter”: “ transsub- 
stantiatis pane in corpus et vino in 
sanguinem.”  (Denzinger-Bannwart, 
n. 430). 

13 Confessio Fidei Mich. Palaeo- 
logi: “ Panis vere transsubstantia- 
tur in corpus et vinum in san- 
guinem.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 
465). 


14 Conc. Trid., Sess. XIII, cap. 4, 
can. 2.— Suarez, De Euch., disp. 
80,: Sect... Fy 941s) Sse >, QUIS > 2% 
vocem transsubstantiationis abticeret 
ut ineptam et barbaram, in re ipsa 
non existimo esse haereticum, quia 
usus vocis per se non pertinet ad 
obiectum fidei, esset tamen valde 
temerarius, scandalosus et pias aures 
offenderet ac denique in externo 
foro esset vehementer de haeresi su- 
spectus.” 


112 THE REAL PRESENCE 


term perovoiwos (in the sense of neraßoAn odawöns) into 
her official terminology in 1643.** 


4. THE Docmatic BEARING OF TRANSUB- 
STANTIATION.—Transubstantiation virtually in- 
cludes the Real Presence, because the substantial 
conversion which takes place in the Eucharist re- 
sults in the Body and Blood of Christ. But it 
would not be true to say, conversely, that Tran- 
substantiation is contained in the dogma of the 
Real Presence. 

The dogma of Transubstantiation comprises 
three separate and distinct heads of doctrine, to 
wit: | 

(1) that Christ is really and truly present 
under the appearances of bread and wine in the 
Holy Eucharist; 

(2) that, though the accidents of bread and 
wine continue, the respective substances no longer 
exist; and 

(3) that both these changes are produced by 
virtue of a substantial conversion. 

Taken in the order in which we have enumer- 
ated them, these doctrines postulate and presup- 
pose one another. Not so, however, if the order 
be inverted. One might believe in the Real Pres- 


15 Cfr. Denifle, Luther und Lu- schichte des Gebrauchs der Aus- 
thertum in der ersten Entwicklung, drücke transsubstantiare und trans- 
Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 614 sq4., May- © substantiatio,’ in the Mayence 
ence 1906; Gillmann, “ Zur Ge- Katholik, 1908, II, pp. 417 sqq. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION 113 


ence without admitting that the substances of 
bread and wine are totally absent, while, con- 
versely, if one believed in the latter doctrine, one 
could not consistently deny the former. Again, 
one might hold the dogma of the Real Presence, 
yet deny that the bread and wine which have un- 
dergone a true transubstantiation are entirely ab- 
sent after the consecration. 


Transubstantiation furnishes a sure criterion for dis- 
cerning erroneous teachings with regard to the Holy 
Eucharist. Take, e. g., Consubstantiation. Luther held 
that the bread and wine remain bread and wine, though 
after the consecration the real Flesh and Blood of Christ 
co-exist in and with the natural elements, just as an iron 
bar still remains an iron bar, though a new element, 
heat, has come to co-exist in and with it. This theory 
is clearly incompatible with Transubstantiation because 
it implies the continued presence of the substances of 
bread and wine. Equally incompatible with the dogma 
as held by the Church, is the isolated view of Durandus 
(+ 1332) that the substantial form of the bread alone 
undergoes conversion, while the primary matter (materia 
prima, %An mpoérn) remains unchanged.” Being a conver- 
sion of the total substance, Transubstantiation involves 
the conversion of the matter of the bread as well as of 
its form, thus obviating the absurd corollary of Durandus 
that the Body of Christ experiences a material increase at 
each consecration.1® The dogma of Transubstantiation 

16 Luther himself uses this illus- Encyclopedia of Religious Knowl- 
tration in a letter to Henry VIII. edge, Vol. III, p. 260). 
See also Herzog’s- Realenzyklopädie 17 Durandus, Comment. in Sent., 


der prot. Theologie, 2nd ed., Vol. IV, dist. 11, qu. 3. 
XV, 829 (The New Schaff-Herzog 18 This corollary was espoused by 


114 THE REAL PRESENCE 


is likewise incompatible with the theory that the Real 
Presence involves a hypostatic union between the sub- 
stance of the bread and the God-man. This theory was 
attributed by Bellarmine and Vasquez to Abbot Rupert 
of Deutz (+ 1135), but it probably originated among 
the adherents of Berengarius in the eleventh century. 
Osiander advocated it in the sixteenth century under the 
name of “ Impanation ” (impanatio, &vaprıonos, Deus panis 
factus). The substantial conversion that takes place in 
the Holy Eucharist cannot be a hypostatic union for the 
simple reason that a process which would convert God into 
a created substance could not be called by that term with- 
out completely changing its meaning. In a somewhat 
modified form the Impanation theory was held by John 
of Paris at the beginning of the fourteenth century. 
This writer taught that there is a hypostatic union be- 
tween the substance of the bread and the God-man, but 
that it affects immediately only the Body of Christ, so 
that it would be correct to say, by virtue of the com- 
munication of idioms, “ This bread is the Body of 
Christ,” but false to say, “ God is bread,” inasmuch as © 
God enters into a hypostatic union with the substance of 
the bread only in a mediate manner, 7. e. through the in- 
strumentality of His Body. But it is manifestly absurd 
to assume that an impersonal substance like bread can be 
hypostatically supported by the Body of Christ. The 
Impanation theory in all its forms furthermore errs in 
assuming the continued existence of the bread in the Holy 
Eucharist. As a matter of fact the total substance of the 
bread is converted into the Body of Christ, and conse- 
Rosmini and condemned by the Chrétienne, May, 1901; cfr. G. van 


Church. (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. Noort, De Sacramentis, Vol. I, znd 
1919). V. Annales de Philosophie ed., p. 276, Amsterdam ı910, 
| 


a 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION 


115 


quently, there is no substance left with which the God- 
man could enter into a hypostatic union.!? 


19 Related to this theory is that 
of the well-known Jesuit Father 
Joseph Bayma (+ 1892 at Santa 
Clara, Cal.; see the Catholic En- 
cyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 360), censured 
by the Holy Office July 7, 1875 
(‘tolerari non posse.’ Denzinger- 


Bannwart, n. 1843  sqq.). Cfr. 
Franzelin, De Euch., thes. 15, scho- 
lion.— On the dogmatic implications 
of Transubstantiation the student 


_may profitably consult Heinrich-Gut- 


berlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. 
IX, § 532. 


SECTION: 2 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION PROVED FROM HOLY 
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 


I. VARIOUS HERETICAL ERRORS VS. THE 
TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.— On three different 
occasions the Church found it necessary to define 
her teaching in regard to Transubstantiation; 
—first against Berengarius; second, against Mar- 
tin Luther, and third, against the Jansenistic 
Council of Pistoia. 


a) Berengarius of Tours,' who flourished towards the 
middle of the eleventh century, denied the dogma of 
Transubstantiation and probably also that of the Real 
Presence. His famous treatise De Sacra Coena con- 
tains the following passage: “ Panis consecratus in 
altarı amisit vilitatem, amisit inefhcacıam, non amisit 
naturae proprietatem.’ Among his adherents there was 
much confusion. While they were unanimous in deny- 
ing Transubstantiation, they differed widely in other re- 
spects. Some held that the Eucharist merely contains 
an image of the Body of Christ; others believed in a sort 
of “ Impanation.” Others, again, more nearly approach- 
ing the Catholic doctrine, admitted a partial conversion 
of the bread and wine, while still others maintained that 
the Body and Blood of our Lord are really and truly 


1V. supra, pp. 47 sq. 
116 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION 117 


present in the Eucharist, but become reconverted into 
bread and wine when received by the wicked.? 

Luther, adhering to belief in the Real Presence, re- 
jected Transubstantiation as “ 
taught in its place what is known as “ Consubstantia- 
tion.”® In their endeavor to explain how two sub- 
stances are able to co-exist in the same place, the 
Lutherans split into two camps, Osiander revived “ Im- 
panation,” * whereas Luther himself, to escape the diffi- 
culties urged against his position, had recourse to the 
famous theory of “ Ubiquitarianism.” ® 

The Jansenistic Council of Pistoia (1786) advised the 
clergy to confine themselves in their preaching to the 
dogma of the Real Presence and to ignore Transubstan- 
tiation as a “scholastic quibble.” ® 


The unbending opposition of the Church to all 
these vagaries shows that she considers the doc- 
trine of Transubstantiation intimately bound up 
_ with that of the Real Presence. 

We have already mentioned the profession of 
faith to which Berengarius was compelled to sub- 
scribe at the Roman Council of 1097. The Coun- 
cil of Trent defined against Luther and his fol- 
lowers: “If anyone saith that, in the sacred 
_ and holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the sub- 
Vol. 


theory is 


: 2 Hergenröther, Handbuch der 
allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte, Vol. 
II, 4th ed., p. 417, Freiburg 1904. 

3V. supra, pp. 49, 113. 

4V. supra; pp. 113 sqq. 

5 The absurdity of the Impanation 
effectively shown by 


Hurter, Compendium Theol. Dog- 


mat., 11], 12t7 ed... n..4x0, 
Innsbruck 1909. On Luther’s 
* Ubiquitarianism ” see Pohle- Preuss, 
Christology, pp. 194 sqq. 

6Cfr. Hergenröther, Kirchenge- 
schichte, Vol. III, ath ed., pp. 628 
sqq., Freiburg 1909. 


a sophistic subtlety” and 


é 


118 THE REAL (PRESENCE 


‘stance of the bread and wine remains con- 
jointly with the Body and Blood of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and 
singular conversion of the whole substance of 
the bread into the Body, and of the whole sub- 
stance of the wine into the Blood— the species 
only of the bread and wine remaining,—which 
conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly 
calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.” ‘ 


The abortive attempt of the Synod of Pistoia to mis- 
represent the dogma thus solemnly proclaimed by the 
Church, was condemned by Pope Pius VI/in his Bull 
“ Auctorem Fidei,’ A.D. 1794.° 

The Tridentine definition states the Catholic belief in 
Transubstantiation so clearly that nothing remains for us 
to do but to show that the dogma has a solid basis in 
Scripture and Tradition. 


2. THE TEACHING OF SACRED SCRIPTURE.— 
The doctrine of Transubstantiation is virtually 


. ma sit.” 


7 Conc. Trid., Sess. XIII, can. 2: 
“ $i quis dixerit, in ss.. Eucharistiae 
sacramento remanere substantiam 
panis et vini una cum corpore et 
sanguine Domini nostri Iesu Christi, 
negaveritque mirabilem üllam et 


singularem conversionem totius sub- 


stantiae panis in corpus et totius 
substantiae vini in sanguinem, 
manentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis 
et vini— quam quidem conversionem 
catholica Ecclesia aptissime trans- 
substantiationem appellat, anathe- 
(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 
884).— On the dogmatic bearing of 


this definition v. supra, Section 1, 
No. 4, pp. 112 sqq. 

8“ Quatenus per  inconsultam 
istiusmodi suspiciosamgque omis- 
sionem notitia subtrahitur tum 
articuli ad fidem pertinentis tum - 
etiam vocis ab Ecclesia consecratae 
ad illius tuendam. professionem ad- 
versus haereses, tenditque adeo ad 
eius oblivionem inducendam, quasi 
ageretur de quaestione mere scho- 
lasticd: perniciosa, derogans expo- 
sitioni veritatis catholicae circa dog- 
ma transsubstantiationis, favens 
haereticis.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, 
ne 71529) 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION 119 


contained in the words by which our Lord insti- 
tuted the Blessed Sacrament: “This is my 
Body,” etc. In the mouth of Him who is Truth 
itself these words cannot possibly be false. When 
the God-man said of the bread, “This is my 
Body,” the bread forthwith became really and 
truly His Body; which can only mean that, when 
He had spoken, the substance of the bread was 
gone and there was present the Body of Christ 
under the outward appearance of bread. 


Scotus, Durandus, Paludanus, Pierre d’Ailly, and 
a few other Scholastic writers contend that the words of 
institution alone, taken literally and without regard to 
their traditional interpretation, do not strictly prove the 
doctrine of Transubstantiation. Vasquez ® declares that, 
since the Tridentine definition, this view is no longer ten- 
able. The most that can be said is that Transubstantia- 
tion cannot be as conclusively deduced from the words 


_ Of institution as the dogma of the Real Presence. Though 


_ the manner in which the presence of the Body of Christ 
is effected in the Holy Eucharist may be logically de- 
duced, it is not perhaps strictly demonstrable from the 
sacred text. The interpretation of that text by the Fa- 
thers, as officially confirmed by the Church, remains the 
only conclusive argument. Nevertheless, it is perfectly 
- proper to conclude from the words of institution that if 
the bread is no longer present after the consecration, it 
must have become the Body of Christ by a substantial 
conversion.?° - 


9 Comment. in Sent., III, disp. bread and wine does not remain 
7180, 6. 5, in the Eucharist, some, deeming it 
10 Because the substance of the impossible for the substance of the 


120 THE REAL PRESENCE 


The Calvinists, therefore, are consistent in rejecting 
the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation as unscrip- 
tural. Had Christ intended to assert that His Body co- 
exists with the substance of the bread, He would surely 
have employed some such expression as, “ This bread 
is my Body,” or, “ This bread contains my Body,” or, 
“Tn this bread is (inest, éveorw) my Body,” or, “ Here is 
my Body.” 22. In matter of fact, however, He employed 
the indefinite phrase rovro, instead of the definite ovros 
(1. e., 6 dptos) &ori TO awnd pov,— thereby clearly indicating 
that what He held in His hands after the consecration 
was no longer bread but His own Body. The copula 
Zoriv between rovro and capa pov manifestly expresses the 
identity of the two. Had our Lord desired to make 
bread merely the sacramental receptacle of His Body, as 
the Lutherans allege, it would have been necessary for 
Him to state this expressly, for neither in the nature of 
the case nor according to common parlance can a piece 
of bread become the receptacle of a human body. On 
the other hand, the synecdoche is plain in the case of the. 
Chalice: “ This is my Blood,” 7. e., the contents of the 
Chalice are my Blood, and hence no longer wine. 


3. [HE „TEACHING. OR TrADITION.—The 
Fathers inculcated the dogma of Transubstantia- 
tion conjointly with that of the Real Presence, 
though complete clearness on the subject was not 
attained until the fourth century. 


bread and wine to be changed into 
Christ’s Flesh and Blood, have main- 
tained that by the consecration the 
substance of the bread and wine 
is either dissolved into the original 
matter, or that it is annihilated, St. 


Thomas briefly disproves both these — 
assumptions in the Summa Theologi- 
CO; 3a, duce 75s ait. s. 

11 Cir St 1 pnomas; 
Theol., 3a, qu. 75, art. 2. 


Summa 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION 121 


a) Hence the Patristic argument for the 
Real Presence also proves the dogma of Tran- 
substantiation.” 


The belief of the early Greek Fathers in Transubstan- 
tiation is apparent from the terms they employ in speak- 
ing of the conversion of bread and wine into the Body 
and Blood of our Lord. Here are some of them: 
neraßdAAeıy (Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret), neraororxeıovv, 
i. e. transelementare (Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom), 
peramouiv, i. e. transferre (Cyril of Alexandria, John of 
Damascus), perappvOuitey (Chrysostom), etc.* Indi- 
rectly the Fathers express their belief in Transubstan- 
tiation whenever they deny, as they often do, that the 
bread and the wine continue to exist as independent sub- 
stances after the consecration, or affirm that the terminus 
ad quem of the conversion that takes place in the Eucha- 
rist is the true Body and Blood of Christ. Thus St. Cyril 
of Jerusalem says: MeraßaAderaı Kat odkerı dptos. St 
Ambrose: “ Species elementorum mutatur.” Cyril of 
Alexandria declares that the bread is changed into the 
true Body of Christ; Chrysostom, that it becomes His 
crucified Body; Ambrose, that it is converted into the 
Body born of the Virgin Mary. 

Dr. Pusey, who denied the cogency of the Patristic 
argument for Transubstantiation,'* was victoriously re- 
futed by Cardinal Franzelin.*° 


12V. supra, pp. 55 sqqa.—Cfr. Real Presence as Contained in the 


Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, III, 20. 
13 The Latin Fathers usually pre- 
fer such simpler verbs as mutare 
(St. Ambrose), fiert (St. Augustine), 
ere: 
14 Pusey, The Doctrine of the 


Fathers, Oxford 1855. 

15 De Eucharistia, thes. 14, pp. 
195 sqq., Rome 1887; cfr. also Rau- 
schen, Eucharist and Penance in the 
First Six Centuries of the- Church, 
pp. 25 sqq., St. Louis 1913. 


122 THE REAL PRESENCE 


b) The argument from the Fathers is strik- 
ingly confirmed by the ancient liturgies, which 
date in substance from the Apostolic age. 


The so-called Liturgy of St. Chrysostom contains this 
beautiful prayer: “Send down Thy Spirit upon us and 
these Thy gifts [i. e. the Eucharistic elements], make 
this bread into the precious Body of Thy Christ. (Dea- 
con: Amen). But that which is in the Chalice make 
into the precious Blood of Thy Christ (Deacon: Amen), 
converting it (peraBadév) through Thy Holy Spirit 
(Deacon thrice: Amen). ... The Lamb of God, the 
Son of the Father, is broken and divided — broken but 
not diminished, everlastingly eaten but not annihilated, 
sanctifying those who partake thereof.”1% The follow- 
ing invocation is from the Liturgy of St. Basil: “ Make 
this bread into the precious Body of our Lord and God 
and Redeemer Jesus Christ, and this chalice into the 
Blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, 
which was-shed for the life of the world.”17 In the 
Armenian Liturgy we read: “ Consecrate this bread and 
wine into the true Body and the true Blood of our Lord 
and Redeemer Jesus Christ, changing (permutans) it 
through Thy Holy Spirit.” +8 The Mass formularies of 
the Western Church are equally expressive. The 
ancient Gothic liturgy says: “ This is the Lamb of 
God, which, being sacrificed, never dies, but, though 
slaughtered, lives everlastingly. .. . May the Paraclete 
descend, that we may partake of the sacrificial gift in 
heavenly conversion, and that, after the consecration of 

16 Goar, Euchologia, pp. 77, 81. panem et vinum in verum corpus 

17. Goat, op. .cit., D. 1609. et verum sanguinem Domini et Re- 


18 Apud Daniel, Codex Liturg., IV, demptoris nostri Iesu Christi permu- 
465, Leipzig 1853: “ Consecra hunc tans Spiritu Sancto tuo.” 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION 123 


the fruit [bread] into the Body, and of the chalice into the 
Blood, it may conduce to our salvation.” An ancient 
Gallican Missal contains the following prayer: ‘‘ May 
the fulness of Thy Majesty, O Lord, . . . descend upon 
this bread and upon this chalice, and may [it] become 
unto us the legitimate Eucharist in the transformation of 
the Body and Blood of the Lord.” '? 


4. THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES.—Since by 
Transubstantiation Christ is not created, but sim- 
ply made present in the sacramental species, 
the question arises: How do the Body and 
Blood of our Lord enter into the accidents of 
bread and wine? ‘This speculative problem pre- 
sents some difficulties. 


The Thomists hold that Christ becomes present in the 
sacramental species per productionem, the Scotists say 
that He enters into them per adductionem, while a third 
school of theologians, headed by Lessius, describes the 
manner of His entering into the species as replicatio 
aequivalens production.”° While these theories cannot 
fully clear up what must of its very nature remain an un- 


19 Apud Mone, Lateinische und 20 There is a fourth school of 


griechische Messen aus dem 2. bis 


6. Jahrhundert, p. 24, Frankfort 
1850: “ Descendat, Domine, pleni- 
tudo maitestatis... super hunc 


panem et super hunc calicem et fiat 
nobis legitima Eucharistia in trans- 
formatione corporis et sanguinis 
Domini.”’— Many other similar ex- 
tracts may be found in Renaudot, 
Lit. Orient., 2nd ed., Frankfort 
1847; Assemani, Codex Liturg. Ec- 
clesiae Universae, 13 vols., Rome 
1749-66; Denzinger, Ritus Orient., 
2 vols., Würzburg 1864. 


divines (Billot, De Sacram., Vol. I, 
4th ed., pp. 312 sqq., 367 saq., 
Rome 1907; N. Gihr, Die hl. Sakra- 
mente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd 
ed., pp. 446 sqq., Freiburg 1902, 
and others)- who simply assert that 
Transubstantiation explains the 
whole problem and attempt no 
deeper solution. The Catechism 
of the Council of Trent is likewise 
very undecided in the matter (De 
Euch., qu. 37). 


124 THE REAL PRESENCE 

fathomable mystery, they are apt at least to throw some 
light upon the problem, and hence we shall briefly re- 
hearse them. 

According to the Thomistic view,”! when the bread is 
converted into the Body of Christ, there is reproduced 
the same Body which was born of the Virgin Mary 
and now sitteth at the right hand of the Father. St. 
Thomas’ own teaching is not entirely clear on this point. 
He says that the change which causes Christ’s Body to 
be present in the Holy Eucharist “ has something in com- 
mon with creation and with natural transmutation,” ” 
and speaks of the Body as “ beginning to be anew” in 
the Blessed Sacrament.?? This is quite in keeping with 
certain expressions found in the ancient liturgies and 
Patristic writings, e. g. that the Body of Christ is made 
or produced out of bread,?* etc. In matter of fact, Tran- 
substantiation, being a true substantial conversion, creates 
as well as destroys,2° and its effect is such that the only 
reason why it does not actually create the Body of our 
Lord is that that Body already exists. 

It is objected that to assume such repeated creations 
would jeopardize the numerical identity of the Eucharistic 
with the heavenly Body of Christ. To this the Thomists 
reply: The process involved in Transubstantiation is 
not a new production in the sense of creation, but rather 
a reproduction of the Body born of the Virgin Mary.” 

It is further objected that if Transubstantiation in- 


21 This teaching is also espoused 
by Suarez (De Euchar., disp. 50, 
sect. 4), Tanner, Arriaga, Platel, 
Coninck, Franzelin, Sasse, De Au- 
gustinis, Tepe, et al. 

22 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 75, art. 
8. 
23 “ Incipit esse de novo.” (Ibid., 
art; 2). 


24 Fieri, effici, product, creari, re- 
creari, are some of the terms em- 
ployed. 

25 V. supra, Sect. 1. 

26 Cfr. Billuart, De Euchar., diss. 
1, art. 7: ‘‘ Idem corpus, quod fuit 
primo productum ex Maria Virgine, 
reproducitur ex pane.” 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION 125 


volved a positive production, it would entail an equally 
positive annihilation of the sacred Body when the species 
cease to exist. This is met by Billuart with the remark: 
“The Body of Christ does not become annihilated, for 
it exists elsewhere; it auply ceases to exist under this 
particular species. 21 

A third objection is: If Transubstantiation involved 
a positive production, the process of conversion would 
affect not only the substance of the bread, which is de- 
stroyed, but likewise the substance of the sacred Body, 
which is produced, — an assumption repugnant to the 
doctrine of the impassibility of the glorified Body of 
Christ. The Thomistic answer to this difficulty may be 
summarized as follows: The immutable Body of Christ, 
though it is reproduced many times over in the Holy 
Eucharist, retains its full identity as a substance; the 
change is purely accidental, as it affects only the mode of 
being. 

These and other difficulties to which the Thomistic 
view is subject have led the Scotists to devise their 
famous theory of “adduction,” which, with various 

_ modifications, was adopted by Bellarmine, Vasquez,?® 
De Lugo,”® Becanus, Pesch, and other prominent theolo- 
gians. In saying that the Body of Christ becomes pres- 
ent in the Eucharistic species per adductionem, these 
writers do not mean to assert that the glorified Body is 
locally moved from Heaven upon the altar.°° It is quite 
possible to conceive of that Body as being present in 

27 "Corpus Christi non cadit in 80 Cfr. Cat. Rom., P. 2, qu. 37: 


‘nihilum, quum alibi existat, sed tan- “At vero fieri non posse constat, 
tum desinit esse sub istis speciebus ut corpus Christi in sacramento sit, 


Punic (Billuart) 2. C.). quod ex uno in alium locum venerit; 
28 Comment. in S. Th., III, disp. ita enim fieret, ut a caeli sedibus 
ISI, c. 12-13. abesset, quoniam nihil movetur, nisi 


29 De Eucharistia, disp. 7, sect. 6. locum deserat, a quo movetur.”’ 


126 THE REAL PRESENCE 


many different places without being moved about in 
space. The theory of “ adduction ” ® is briefly explained 
by Bellarmine as follows: “The Body of our Lord 
exists before the conversion; not, however, under the 
species of bread. The conversion, therefore, does not 
cause it simply to begin to exist, but to begin to exist under 
the appearance of bread. Hence we call this conversion 
adductio, not because through it the Body of Christ leaves 
its place in Heaven, or is brought hither from Heaven by 
local motion, but solely because by this process the Body, 
which previously existed in Heaven only, now also exists 
under the appearance of bread,— not merely by simple 
presence or co-existence, but by a certain union, such as 
that which obtained between the substance of the bread 
and its accidents, inherence excepted.” * 

Critical Appreciation of These Theories. The ele- 
ments of truth contained in these two theories can be com- 
bined into a third, which seems to us more satisfactory. 
Undeniably there is some sort of adductio involved in 
Transubstantiation. This is evident from the fact that 
the Body of Christ begins to exist in a place where it 
previously did not exist. This mysterious beginning is 
popularly called a “ coming down” or “ bringing down ” 
from Heaven, which expression may be accepted if 
purged of its local connotations. But Transubstantia- 


31 Henno prefers the term “ intro- in caelo vel quia per motum localem 
p 


ductio.” 
832 Bellarmine, De Euchar., III, 
18: “Corpus Domini praeexistit 
ante conversionem, sed non sub spe- 
ciebus panis; conversio igitur non 
facit, ut corpus Christi simpliciter 
esse incipiat, sed ut incipiat esse sub 
speciebus panis. Porro adductivam 
vocamus istam conversionem, 
quia corpus Christi per 
adductionem deserat suum 


hanc 
locum 


non, 


hue de caelo adducatur, sed solum 


quia per eam fit, ut corpus Christi, 
quod antea solum erat in caelo, tam 
etiam sit sub speciebus panis, et non 
solum sub illis sit per simplicem 
praesentiam vel coexistentiam, sed 
etiam per unionem quandam, qualis 
erat inter substantiam panis et ac- 
cidentia panis, exceptä tamen in- 
haerentiä.” (See also Pesch, Prael. 
Dogm., Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 319° 
sqq.) 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION 127 


tion, by its very definition,®* not only destroys one sub- 
stance; it also produces another, and therefore manifestly 
involves more than a mere adductio, namely, a sort of 
productio or reproductio in the Thomistic sense.®* Not 
that the glorified Body of Christ is subjected to a sub- 
stantial change; but by virtue of the consecration it 
enters upon a new mode of existence (esse sacramentale), 
which, though perfectly real, involves no more than an 
accidental change. Nevertheless, the power inherent in 
the words of consecration is so great that, if the sub- 
stance of the Eucharistic Body did not already exist, 
those words would as surely call it into being, as the 
“fiat” of the Almighty created the universe. In this 
_ sense the reproductio of the Body of our Lord in the 
Eucharist is conceivable as a merely virtual productio, 
which in respect of the multiplication of the real pres- 
ences of one and the same Body may also be termed, in 
the phraseology of Lessius, a replicatio aequivalens pro- 
duction.®® 


Reapincs:—J. M. Piccirelli, S. Te Disquisitio Dogmatica, 
Critica, Scholastica, Polemica de Catholico Intellectw Dogmatis 


 Transsubstantiationis, Naples 1912— D. Coghlan, De SS. Eucha- 


ristia, pp. 132 sqq., Dublin 1913—A. M. Lépicier, Tract. De SS. 
Eucharistia, Vol. I, pp. 149 sqq., Paris 1917—Ed. Hugon, O. P., 
La Sainte Eucharistie, Paris 1916, pp. 107 sqq.—B. J. Otten, 
S. J.. A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. II, St. Louis 
1918, pp. 315 sqq.—J. S. Vaughan, Thoughts For All Times, 
23rd Am. ed., Springfield, Mass., 1916, pp. 139 sqq. 


33 V, supra, Sect, 1 55 Lessius, De Perfectionibus Di- 
3 V. supra, Sect, 1, No. 2. vinis, XII, 16, 114 sag. 


CHAU REY: 


THE PERMANENCE OF THE REAL PRESENCE AND. 
THE ADORABLENESS OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST 


From what we have said in the three preceding 
chapters we may deduce two important corolla- 
ries, viz.: (1) the Permanence of the Real Pres- 
ence, and (2) the Adorableness of the Holy Eu- 
charist. 


128 


SECTION. 


THE PERMANENCE OF THE REAL PRESENCE 


I. HERETICAL ERRORS VS. THE TEACHING OF 
THE CHurcH.—Luther at first defended the 
Real Presence against Carlstadt and Zwingli; but 
later, in his controversy with Butzer and Me- 
lanchthon (1536), he arbitrarily restricted it to 
the moment of reception (in usu, non extra 
usum). This erroneous teaching was adopted 
into the Formula of Concord, A. D. 1577." 

The Catholic Church, on the contrary, holds 
that Christ is present immediately after the con- 
secration,? ante and post usum as well as im usu, 
and that His presence consequently does not 
depend upon the act of eating or drinking in 
Communion. The Council of Trent defines: 
“Tf anyone saith that, after the consecration is 
completed, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus 


Christ are not in the admirable Sacrament of the 


Eucharist, but [are there] only during the use, 
whilst it is being taken, and not either before or 


1“ Extra usum, dum reponitur aut 2Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, 
asservatur in pyxide aut ostenditur cap. 3: “. .. statim post consecra- 
in processionibus, ut fit apud papi-  tionem.” 
stas, sentiunt [Lutherani] corpus 
Christi non adesse.” 


‚129 


130 THE REAL PRESENCE 


after; and that in the hosts or consecrated par- 
ticles which are reserved or which remain after 
communion, the true Body of our Lord remain- 
eth not; let him be anathema.” ° 

This teaching can be convincingly proved from 
Sacred Scripture and Tradition. 

2. THE PERMANENCE OF THE REAL PRESENCE 
PROVED FROM REVELATION.—In the deposit of 
faith the Real Presence and the permanence of 
that Presence are so closely bound up that in the 
mind of the Church both are one undivided 
whole. 

a) Christ promised to give His Body and 
Blood to His followers as meat and drink, 1. e., 
as something permanent, something existing be- 
fore the act of eating and drinking.* When, in 
instituting the Eucharist, He said, “Take ye, 
and eat, this is my Body,’ His meaning clearly 
was, “That which you are about to eat is my 
Body,” and not, “That which you are about to eat 
will become my Body at the moment when you eat 
168 

No matter how short the interval of time between 
consecration and communion, it is certain that the Body 


3Sess. XIII, can. 4: “Si quis  reservantur vel supersunt, non re- 
dixerit, peractä consecratione in manere verum corpus Domini, ana- 
admirabili Eucharistiae sacramento thema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, 
non esse corpus et sanguinem Domini n. 886). 


nostri Iesu Christi, sed tantum in 
usu, dum sumitur, non autem ante 
vel post, et in hostiis seu particulis 
consecratis, quae post communionem 


4John VI, 50 sag. 
5 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 
3a, qu. 78, art. 6. 


_ PERMANENCE OF THE REAL PRESENCE = 131 


of Christ, which the Apostles received at the Last Sup- 
per, was really and truly. present before they received 
it. The Council of Trent says: “The Apostles had 
not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of 
the Lord, when nevertheless He Himself affirmed with 
truth that to be His own Body which He presented [to 
them]. ® 
That the Real Presence does not depend upon the 
actual consumption of the Eucharist is clearly manifest 
in the case of the Chalice. Christ said: “ Drink ye all 
of this; for (enim, yap) this is my Blood.”* The act of 
drinking is here evidently neither the cause nor an in- 
dispensable condition of the presence of His Blood.® 


b) The argument from Tradition is so strong 
that even Calvin was constrained to admit that 
the Catholic teaching “has in its favor the exam- 
ple of the ancient Church.” ° 


a) The belief of the Fathers may be gathered from 
the texts quoted above in support of the Real Pres- 
ence? We shall add a few others which expressly 
assert the permanence of that Presence. 

St. Cyril of Alexandria says: “I hear that there are 
others who assert that the Eulogy profits nothing for 
sanctification if a portion thereof remains over for the 
following day. But they who speak thus, speak fool- 
ishly ; for neither is Christ altered, nor His sacred Body 


6 Sess. XIII, cap. 3: “ Nondum 8 For a more exhaustive discussion 


enim Eucharistiam de manu Domini 
susceperant, quum vere tamen ipse 
_afirmaret, corpus suum esse, quod 
praebebat.” _ (Denzinger-Bannwart, 
n. 876). 

7 Matth. XXVI, 27 sq. 


of this point see Bellarmine, De 
Euchar., IV, 2; Tepe, pp. 250 sqq. 

9 Instit., 1V, 17, § 39: “ Qui sic 
faciunt, habent veteris Ecclesiae 
exemplum, fateor.” 

10 Supra, Ch. I, Sect. 2, Art. 2. 


132 THE REAL PRESENCE 
changed, but the virtue of the blessing as well as the 
life-giving grace remain permanently therein.” ** - | 

St. Jerome regarded as fortunate those who were per- 
mitted to carry off the Body of Christ in a plaited basket 
and His Blood in a glass.” 

St. Chrysostom compares the altar on which the Eucha- 
rist reposes, with the manger in which the Infant Jesus 
lay at Bethlehem."? 

St. Optatus of Mileve (+ about 400) refers to the 
altar as “the seat of both the Body and the Blood of 
Christ,” and to the chalice as “ the bearer of the Blood of 
Christ 


ß) The official practice of the Church was in 
perfect harmony with this teaching. 


In the early days the faithful frequently carried the 
Blessed Eucharist home? or took it with them when 
they travelled,!° a custom which continued in some places 
to the twelfth century.” The deacons were accustomed 
to bring the Blessed Sacrament to those who were unable 
to attend divine service,!® as well ds to the martyrs, pris- 
oners, and the infirm.t® The “ Apostolic Constitutions,” 
which were probably composed in the eighth century, in- 
struct deacons to place the particles remaining after Com- 
munion in specially prepared receptacles called “ Pasto- 


11 Ep. ad Calosyr. (Migne, P. G., 
LXXVI, 1075). 

12 Ep. 123 ad Rustic., n. 20: 
“ Nihil illo ditius, qui corpus Domini 
canistro vimineo, sanguinem portat 
in vitro.” 

13 In S. Philogon., n. 3. 

14De Schism. Donat., IV, 1 8q. 
(Migne, P. L., XI, 1065, 1068). 
Cfr. Bellarmine, De Euchar., IV, 4. 

15 Cfr. Tertullian, Ad Uxor., II, 


's; St. Cyprian, De Lapsis, n. 26. 


16 Cfr. St. Ambrose, De Excessu 
Fratris, I, 43 and 46. 

17 Cfr. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 
Vol. III, znd ed., pp. 583, 752, Frei- 
burg 1877. 

18 Cfr. Justin Martyr, Apolog., I, 
n. 67. 

19 Cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, 
44. 


PERMANENCE OF THE REAL PRESENCE 133 


phoria.” ?°° Furthermore, as early as the fourth century,”* 
it was customary to celebrate the “ Mass of the Presanc- 
tified,” 2? which the Latin Church now restricts to Good 
Friday, while the Greeks, since the Council in Trullo 
(692), celebrate it daily during the whole of Lent. 


c) The Permanence of the Real Presence may 
be further proved and illustrated by the follow- 
ing philosophical considerations: 


a) The fundamental reason is found in the fact 
that some time necessarily elapses between consecration 
and communion. This is not the case with the other 
Sacraments. Baptism, for instance, lasts only as long as 
the baptismal act or ablution lasts, and is therefore called 
a sacramentum transitorium. The Holy Eucharist, on the 
contrary, is a permanent Sacrament (sacramentum perma- 
nens). “ The other Sacraments,” says the Council of 
Trent, “begin to have the power of sanctifying [then] 
_ only when one uses them, whereas in the Eucharist, before 
being used, there is the very author of sanctity.” And 
again: “If anyone saith that, after the consecration is 
completed, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ 
are not in the admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist, but 
[are there] only during the use, whilst it is being taken, 
and not either before or after; and that in the hosts or 
consecrated particles which are reserved or which remain 
after communion, the true Body of The Lord remaineth 
not; let him be anathema.” *4 


20 Cfr. Constit. Apost., VIII, 13: sacramenta tunc primum sanctificandi 
Ol didkovo. Ta TepiccevoavtTa vim habent, quum quis illis utitur; at 


elodeperwoav eis Ta maoTopöpta. in Eucharistia ipse sanctitatis auctor 
21 Cfr. Synod. -Laodic., can. 49. ante [et post] usum est.” 
22 Missa Praesanctificatorum. 24 Ibid., can. 4 (quoted supra, P 


28 Sess. XIII, cap. 3: “ Reliqua 130, n. 3). 


134 THE REAL PRESENCE 

No doubt Christ might have made the Eucharist a 
merely transitory Sacrament had He so willed. But this 
was evidently not His intention. It is inconsistent and 
arbitrary to say, as Chemnitz does, that Christ is truly 
present whilst the Sacrament is taken to the sick, but 
that His presence ceases as soon as the Eucharist is re- 
served for other purposes.” Leibniz, though a Protes- 
tant, was keen enough to perceive that either the words 
of consecration pronounced by the priest are false, or 
that which is blessed is necessarily the Body of Christ, 
even before it is eaten.” 

ß) The Permanence of the Real Presence, however, is 
limited to a period of time, the beginning of which is 
determined by the instant of consecration, while the end 
is rather difficult to ascertain. The only thing that is 
theologically certain is that Christ continues to be present 
under the appearances of bread and wine as long as these 
appearances are apt to contain within themselves the sub- 
stances of bread and wine. When corruption (corruptio 
specierum) sets in, e. g. when the host becomes mouldy or 
the contents of the Chalice sour, Christ is no longer pres- 
ent. The cessation of the Real Presence must not, how- 
ever, be conceived as a. “ retransubstantiation,” ** for 
while Christ may be the terminus ad quem of a substan- 
tial conversion, He can never become its terminus a quo. 


25 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, 
IV, 27: 

26 Syst. Theol., c. 48. We quote 
the passage in its context: “ Certum 
est antiquitatem tradidisse, ipsd con- 
secratione fieri conversionem,... 
neque unquam. veteribus auditum est 
novum quorundam dogma, quod in 
momento perceptionis demum adsit 
corpus Christi. Certum enim est, 
nonnullos sacrum hunc cibum non 
statim consumpsisse, sed aliis misisse 


et secum domum, imo in itinera, in 


- deserta tulisse eumque morem ali- 


quando fuisse commendatum, quam- 
quam postea abrogatus sit maioris 
reverentiae causa. Et profecto, aut 
falsa sunt, quae a sacerdote pro- 
nuntiantur verba institutionis, quod 
absit, aut necesse est, quod benedic- 
tum est, esse corpus Christi, etiam 
antequam manducetur.” 

27 Oswald seems to favor this view 
(Die hl. Sakramente, pp. 409 sqq.)- 


-ERMANENCE OF THE REAL PRESENCE 135 


on brings back those elementary substances ciate cor- 
respond to the peculiar nature of the changed accidents. 
Thus the miracle of the Eucharistic conversion does not 
abolish the law of the len wen ae! of matter. 


SECTION 2 


THE ADORABLENESS OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST 


1, STATE OF THE QuEsTION.—If. Christ is 
really, truly, and substantially present in the 
Holy Eucharist, the adorableness of the Blessed 
Sacrament requires no further proof for anyone 
who believes in His Divinity. 


As we have shown in Christology,' the same worship 
(cultus latriae) is due to the God-man Jesus Christ that 
is due to the Triune God. Now, it is Jesus Christ who 
is truly present in the Eucharist ; consequently the Eucha- 
rist is adorable. 

This truth is not affected by the circumstance that the 
Eucharist was primarily instituted as a sacrificial meal 
(Communion). It is always the God-man Himself who 
is offered in the Mass and consumed in Communion. 
The Council of Trent says: “ For not therefore is it 
[the Holy Eucharist] the less to be adored on this ac- 
count, that it was instituted by Christ the Lord in order 
to be received: for we believe that same God to be pres- 
ent therein, of whom the Eternal Father, when introduc- 
ing Him into the world, says: ‘ And let all the angels of 
God adore Him.””? In other words, the Eucharistic 


1 Pohle-Preuss, Christology, _PP- quod fuerit a Christo Domino, ut 
278 sqq., 2nd ed., St. Louis 1916. sumatur, institutum; nam illum eun- 


2Ses¢. XIII, cap. 5: “ Neque dem Deum praesentem in eo adesse — 


enim ideo minus est adorandum, credimus, quem Pater aeternus in- 


136 


ADORABLENESS OF THE EUCHARIST 137 


_ Christ is substantially identical, and therefore equally 


adorable, with the Lord Christ who sitteth at the right 
hand of God the Father in Heaven. 


Because of this identity the Tridentine Coun- 
cil solemnly defines: “If anyone saith that, in 
the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the 
only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored 
with the worship, even external, of latria, and 
is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a 
special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly 
borne about in processions, ... and that the 
adorers thereof are idolaters; let him be ana- 
mveiiacy<” | 

In the absence of Scriptural proof this propo- 
sition must be demonstrated from Tradition. 

2. ARGUMENT From TRrapırıon.—A broad 
distinction must of course be made between the 
_ dogmatic principle of the adorableness of the 
- Holy Eucharist and the varying discipline with 
regard to the outward form of worship given 
toit. Though the principle was recognized from 
the beginning, there has been, at least in the 
Latin Church, a gradual development in the ex- 

ternal pomp with which the devotion to the 
- Eucharist was surrounded. 


troducens in orbem terrarum dicit: um non esse cultu latriae etiam ex- 
Et adorent eum omnes angeli.”  terno adorandum atque ideo nec fe- 
(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 878). stiva peculiari celebritate veneran- 

3 Sess. XIII, can. 6: “Si quis dum,... et eius adoratores esse 


_. dixerit, in ss. Eucharistiae sacra- idolatras, anathema sit.” (Denzin- 


mento Christum unigenitum Dei Fili- ger-Bannwart, n. 888). 


138 THE REAL PRESENCE 


a) The principle itself was clearly enunciated 
by the Fathers. . 


i 


The early Patristic writers quite naturally speak of the 
adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in connection with 
the Mass and Communion. 

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) exhorts his neo- 
phytes as follows: “ When thou approachest, do not 
come with outspread hands and fingers, but make thy left 
hand as it were the throne of the right, which is destined 
to receive the King, and receive the Body of Christ into 
the hollow of thy hand and say, ‘Amen.’ After thou 
hast purified thine eyes by cautiously applying them to | 
the sacred Body, be careful, in consuming it, that no 
particle falls to the ground. ... Having partaken of 
the Body of Christ, step forward to take the Chalice of 
the Blood; * do not stretch out thy hands, but drop them 
and, assuming an attitude of adoration and homage,’ say 
“Amen, and sanctify thyself by participation in the 
Blood of Christ. And whilst the moisture thereof still 
adheres to thy lips, touch it with thy hands and sanc- 
tify therewith the eyes, the forehead, and the other 
senses. Finally, awaiting the [concluding] prayer, give 
thanks to God, who has vouchsafed thee such great mys- 
terien © 

St. Ambrose says: “ By ‘ footstool’ [Ps. XCVIII, 5] 
is understood the earth; by the earth, the Flesh of Christ, 
which we adore to-day in the mysteries, and which the 
Apostles adored in our Lord Jesus.” 7 


4 mpocépxov Kal mwornpiw Tov 7 De Spiritu Sancto, III, 11, 79: 
aluaros. “Per scabellum terra intellegitur, 
5 Tpönp mpookvvnoews Kal oeßd- per terram autem caro Christi, quam 
cuaros, hodiedum in mysteriis adoramus et 


6 Catech. Myst., V, n. 21 (Migne, quam Apostoli in Domino lesu adora- 
PxoG., XXXIL 1125-8.) verunt.” (Migne, P. L., XVI, 828). 


ADORABLENESS OF THE EUCHARIST 139 


Commenting on the same Psalm, St. Augustine says: 
“ No one eats this Flesh unless he has previously adored | 
Biel. ® 

A passage in the Syriac Liturgy of St. James reads: 
“Let us adore and praise the living Lamb of God, who 
is offered upon the altar.” ® - 


b) In the early Church, the adoration of the 
Blessed Sacrament was for the most part re- 
stricted, as it still is among the Greeks, to the 
Mass and Communion. 


However, as late as 1672, a schismatic synod held at 
Jerusalem declared: “ We likewise [believe] that the 
same Body and Blood of the Lord should be treated 
with supreme honor and adored with the worship of 
latria, since there is one adoration of the Blessed Trinity 
and the Body and Blood of the Lord.” 1° 

In the West the way was opened to a more exalted 
veneration of the Blessed Sacrament when the faithful 
were allowed to receive holy Communion apart from the 
liturgical service. After the Berengarian controversy, 
in the twelfth century, the present practice of reservation 
was introduced for the express purpose of enabling the 
faithful to adore the Sacred Host outside of the Mass. 
In the thirteenth century, the so-called “ theophoric pro- 
cessions ’’ came into vogue, and the Feast of Corpus 


8in Ps., 98, n. 9: “ Nemo illam 10“ Item [credimus] et supremo 
carnem manducat, nisi prius ado- colendum honore cultuque latriae 
raverit.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVII, idem Domini corpus et sanguinem 
1264). esse adorandum, quippe ss. Trinitatis 


9“ Adoremus et laudemus Agnum | et corporis sanguinisque Domini una 
vivum Dei, qui offertur super al- est adoratio.” (Hardouin, Concil. 
tare.” (Renaudot, Liturg. Orient., Collect., Vol. XI, p. 254). 
znd ed., Vol. II; p. 29, Frankfort 
1847). 


140 THE REAL PRESENCE 

Christi was instituted by Urban IV at the solicitation 
of St. Juliana of Liége. Henceforth the adoration of the 
Blessed Sacrament became general among the faith- 
ful. Beautiful hymns, like the “Pange lingua” of 
St. Thomas, were composed in its honor. In the four- 
teenth century it became customary to expose the 
Blessed Sacrament for public adoration. Of the Corpus 
Christi processions the Council of Trent declares “ that 
very piously and religiously was this custom introduced 
into the Church, that this sublime and venerable Sacra- 
ment be celebrated with special veneration and solemnity 
every year on a certain festival day, and that it be borne 
reverently and with honor in processions through the 
streets and public places.” ** A new impetus was given 
to the adoration of the Eucharist when St. Alphonsus de’ 
Liguori introduced the custom of paying regular visits 
to our Lord hidden in the tabernacle. Since then numer- 
ous orders and congregations have devoted themselves to 
the unceasing adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the 
devotion of “ Perpetual Prayer” has been introduced into 
many dioceses, Eucharistic Leagues have been established 
among the clergy, Eucharistic Congresses are regularly 
held, and all these agencies conspire to keep alive an 
ardent and devout faith in Him who said: “ Behold I 
am with you all days, even to the consummation of the 
world.” 1? 


11 Sess. XIII, cap. 5: “ Declarat tur.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 878). 


12 Matth. 20.— Cfr. 


sancta Synodus, pie et religiose ad- 
modum in Dei Ecclesiam inductum 
fuisse hunc morem, ut singulis annis 
peculiari quodam et festo die prae- 
celsum hoc et venerabile sacramen- 
tum singulari veneratione ac solemni- 
tate celebraretur, utque in proces- 
sionibus reverenter et honorifice illud 
per vias et loca publica circumferre- 


XXVIII, 
Jacob Hoffmann, Die Verehrung und 
Anbetung des allerheiligsten Sakra- 
mentes des Altars geschichtlich dar- 
gestellt, Kempten 1897; T. E. Brid- 
gett, History of the Holy Eucharist 
in Great Britain, new’ed., London 
1910; F. Raible, Der Tabernakel 
einst und jetzt, Freiburg 1908. 


ADORABLENESS OF THE EUCHARIST 141 


3. A THEOLOGICAL QueEstion.—Theologians 
are wont to discuss the question whether and to 
what extent the sacred species participate in the 
worship rendered to our Lord in the Blessed Sac- 
rament. 


The adoration which Catholics give to Christ under 
the appearances of bread and wine is not separate and 
distinct from that which they give to the sacred species 
as such. The one sole and total object of the Eucha- 
ristic cult is our Eucharistic Lord Himself, that is to say, 
Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, or the Sacrament as 
such We do not “adore bread” (adoratio pants, 
dproAarpeia), because, according to Catholic teaching, the 
substance of bread is no longer present in the Holy 
Eucharist and we give no separate adoration to its acci- 
dents. The object of our adoration is the totum sacra- 
mentale.** 

_ Tf one were with idolatrous intent to adore the species 
apart from their contents (7. e. Christ), he would commit 
a greater sacrilege than if he would give divine worship 
to the Sacred Heart, as a creature, and apart from the 
Hypostatic Union; for, unlike the Sacred Heart, the 
sacramental species are not a part of the Hypostatic 
Union. It follows that the sacred species, as such, are 
not entitled to latreutic but only to dulic, or, more ac- 
curately speaking, to hyperdulic worship,** though in 
practice neither the Church nor the faithful pay any at- 


18 Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, 14 Cfr. on this point Suarez, De 
cap. 5: “Omnes Christi fideles Eucharistia, disp. 65, sect. 1. 
pro more in catholica Ecclesia re- 15 On the notions latria, dulia, 


cepto latriae cultum, qui vero Deo and hyperdulia, see Pohle-Preuss, 
debetur, huic ss. sacramento in Mariology, pp. 140 sqq., St. Louis 
veneratione exhibent.” 1914. 


Siew THE REAL PRESENCE 
tention to this übte distinction, but BE, adore the 


Blessed Sacrament as unum morale.*® 


16 Cfr. Vasquez, Comment. in S. De Myst. Incarn., disp. 26, sect. 5, 
Th. 111, qu. 108, .c, 12; De Lugo, m, '72 . 


CHARTERAV 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION OF THE MYSTERY OF 
THE REAL PRESENCE 


“First believe, then inquire,” must be the load- 
star of all theological speculation. Fides quaerit 
intellectum. Though the Scholastics evolved a 
number of reasons why it is fit that Christ should 
be really and substantially present in the Holy 
Eucharist,! after all is said, the human intellect, 
even when illumined by faith, can not fathom the 
mystery nor demonstrate its intrinsic possibility. 
The Eucharist belongs to the category of abso- 
lute theological mysteries. Christian philosophy 
can do no more than refute the objections raised 
against the dogma and show that it is not repug- 
nant to reason. 


Unbelievers contend that the mystery of the Real Pres- 
ence involves three glaring contradictions, to wit: (1) 
the existence of accidents without their natural subject; 
(2) a spiritual mode of existence on the part of a mate- 
rial body; and (3) the simultaneous existence of that 
body in many places. 

We will try to refute these three objections in as many 
Sections. ; 

1Cfr, N. Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., 

§ 56. 
143 


SECTION T 


FIRST APPARENT CONTRADICTION: THE CONTIN- 
UED EXISTENCE OF THE EUCHARISTIC SPECIES 
WITHOUT THEIR NATURAL SUBJECT 


In order to refute the first objection, it is necessary to 
answer three questions, viz.: (1) Do the outward ap- 
pearances of bread and wine continue to exist without the 
substances of bread and wine as their connatural sub- 
jects? (2) Are these appearances (accidentia sine 
subiecto) physical entities or mere subjective impres- 
sions? (3) Are substanceless accidents possible, and 
if so, how can they be explained from the philosophical 
point of view? 

The first of these questions can be answered with cer- 
tainty of faith; for the second we have theological cer- 
tainty only, while the third is a matter of speculation. 


I. THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THE AC- 
CIDENTS OF BREAD AND WINE WITHOUT THEIR 
NATURAL SUBSTRATA.—The dogma of Transub- 
stantiation implies that the entire substance of 
‚the bread and the entire substance of the wine 
are converted, respectively, into the substances of 
the Body and Blood of Christ, and that the con- 
version takes place in such a way that “only the 
appearances of bread and wine remain.” ' 


1 Cone. Trid., Sess. XIII, can. 2. 
44 


4 fa sea — ee ee a ae er BEN bin; 3 ; ees a Er AR 4 
ET Seide ee ri ken ai Te ar A ET en una, 


N = 
aes pels, 


i 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 145 


Hence, what the senses perceive after the conse- 
cration are merely the appearances without their 
substances.’ 


a) If it be further asked, whether these appearances 
have any subject at all in which they inhere, the answer 
is that they are accidentia sine subiecto and owe their 
continued existence to a miracle. This is not an article 
of faith, but it is part and parcel of the traditional teach- 
ing of the Church.? To deny it would be tantamount to 
asserting that the Body of Christ supplies the substance 
of the bread and becomes the subject of its remaining 
accidents.* This is to be rejected because the Body of 
Christ sustains its own accidents, both natural® and 
supernatural,® and cannot assume those of a foreign sub- 
stance; and furthermore because it is both impassible and 
immutable, whereas the Eucharistic species are subject 
to-change. -“ It. is’ manifest,” says St. ‘Thomas, “that 
these accidents are not subjected in the substance of 
Christ’s Body and Blood, because the substance of the 
human body cannot be in any way affected by such acci- 
dents; nor is it possible for Christ’s glorious and impas- 
sible Body to be altered so as to receive these qualities.” ? 
Suarez adds that, as the Eucharistic Body of Christ ex- 


2 a supra, Che Til, Secti. 2: 

3 Suarez, Toletus, De Lugo, and 
others declare this to be a ‘ propo- 
sitio fdei.” Their opinion is not 
shared by the majority of theolo- 
gians, but all without exception de- 
fend it as absolutely certain. The 
proof of this assertion will be found 
in Theoph. Raynaud, S. J., Evu- 
viae Panis et Vini, Lyons 1665. 

4This is held by A. Leray, Le 
Dogme de l’Eucharistie, Paris 1900. 

5 Form, figure, etc. 


6 Impassibility, spirituality, etc.— 
V. Eschatology. 

7 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 77, art. 
1: “ Manifestum est autem quod 
huiusmodi accidentia non sunt in 
substantia corporis et sanguinis 
Christi sicut in subiecto, quia sub- 
stantia humani corporis nullo modo 
potest his accidentibus affici, neque 
etiam est possibile quod corpus 
Christi gloriosum et impassibile ex- 
istens alteretur ad suscipiendas 
huiusmodi qualitates.” 


146 THE REAL PRESENCE 


ists in a spatially uncircumscribed and spirit-like manner,® 
there is in the Holy Eucharist no substratum fit to assume 
quantitative and divisible accidents. Schell tried to 
solve this difficulty by declaring the Body of Christ to bé 
the “metaphysical subject of the Eucharistic appear- 
ances.”® But this brings us no nearer to a satisfactory 
solution of the problem. How are we to conceive of the 
distinction between a physical and a metaphysical sub- 
ject? The Body of Christ, as ens in se, is either the real 
subject of the Eucharistic accidents, or it is not. If it 
is, the metaphysical is at the same time the physical sub- 
ject, and the objections remain. If it is not, then the 
Eucharistic appearances are clearly accidentia sine sub- 
iecto. The most that could be said is that the Body 
of Christ is the metaphysical subject of the Eucharistic 
accidents in so far as it radiates a miraculous sustaining 
power which supports the appearances bereft of their 
natural substances and preserves them from collapse. 
But in adopting this view we should be leaving the do- 
main of material causes, to which a substance as the 
subject of accidents belongs, and entering that of eff- 
cient causes, in which the solution of the problem, as 
formulated by Dr. Schell, cannot be sought. . 


b) The position of the Church may be gathered from 


the definitions of the Councils of Constance (1414-1418) 
and Trent (1545-1563). 


The Council of Constance, in its eighth session, ap- | 
proved by Martin V in 1418, condemned the following 


propositions of Wiclif: (1) “ The material substance 
of bread and likewise the material substance of wine re- 
main in the Sacrament of the Altar;” (2) “ The acci- 


8 V. supra., Ch. II, Thesis 4, pp. 98 sqq. 
9 Dogmatik, Vol. III, 2, p. 535, Paderborn 1892. 


oe a BIST = a ae : er ‘ 
ne Pe ea a See ae Se Fe ee ee eee 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 147 


dents of the bread do not remain without a subject.” *° 


The first of these propositions involves an open denial of 
the dogma of Transubstantiation. The second might be 
considered as merely a different wording of the first, 
did not the history of the Council show that Wiclif had 
violently opposed the Scholastic doctrine of “ accidents 
without a subject.” Hence it was the evident inten- 
tion of the Council to condemn the second proposition 
not merely as a conclusion drawn from the first, but as a 
distinct and independent thesis.” We may therefore 
sum up the teaching of the Church in this proposition, 
which represents the contradictory of the one condemned: 
“ The accidents of the bread remain without a subject.” !? 

This interpretation of the decree of Constance is con- 
firmed by the Council of Trent, which defines: : “If 
anyone ... denieth that wonderful and singular con- 
version of the whole substance of the bread into the 
Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the 
Blood,— the species only of the bread and wine remain- 
ing,—let him be anathema.”** According to this 
definition something remains of the bread and wine after 
the consecration. Is it part of the respective substances of 
bread and wine? No; the whole substance of the bread 
has been converted into the Body and the whole sub- 
stance of the wine into the Blood of Christ. What, then, 
remains? The Council tells us that it is “the species of 


10“ Art. 1. Substantia panis ma- 12 Cfr, Hardouin, Coll. Conc., Vol. 


terialis et similiter substantia vini 
materialis remanent in sacramento 
aliaris.’— Art, 2. Accidentia 
panis non manent sine subiecto in 
eodem sacramento.” 
Bannwart, n. 581 sq.) 

11Cfr. De <Augustinis, De Re 
Sacramentaria, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 


573 sqq. x 


(Denzinger- 


VIII, p. 404. 

13 “ Accidentia panis manent sine 
subiecto.” 

14 Sess. XIII, can. 2: Sr quis 

. negaverit conversionem totius 
substantiae panis in corpus et totius 
substantiae vini in  sanguinem, 
manentibus dumtaxat speciebus 
panis et vini,... anathema sit.” 


148 THE REAL PRESENCE 


bread and wine.” These species must, therefore, be acci- 
dents, and, having by Transubstantiation lost their con- 
natural subjects, which cannot be supplied by the Body 
of Christ, they are clearly accidentia sine subiecto. Such 
was the teaching of contemporary theologians, and the 
Roman Catechism, referring to the above-quoted Tri- 
dentine canon, tersely explains: “All the accidents of 
bread and wine we indeed may see; however, they in- 
here in no subject, but exist by themselves.” 5° And: 
“. . as the accidents cannot inhere in the Body and 
Blood of Christ, it remains that, in a manner altogether 
above the order of nature, they sustain themselves, sup- 
ported by nothing else; this has been the uniform and 
constant doctrine of the Catholic Church.” !® 


2. THE PHysicAL REALITY OF THE EUCHA- 
RISTIC ACCIDENTS.—Though such eminent theo- 
logians as Gregory of Valentia, Suarez, Vasquez, 
and De Lugo hold the physical reality of the 
Eucharistic accidents to be an article of faith, it 
is no more than a theological conclusion. Certain 
writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth 
centuries, who inclined to Cartesianism, asserted 
that the Eucharistic appearances are optical de- 


15 Catech. Rom., De Euchar., qu. 
26: ‘“‘Ac panis quidem et vini ac- 
cidentia omnia licet videre, quae 
tamen nulli substantiae inhaerent, 
sed per se ipsa constant.” 

16 Ibid., qu. 43: “ Quoniam ea 
accidentia Christi corpori et san- 
guini inhaerere non possunt, re- 
linquitur, ut super omnem naturae 
ordinem ipsa se, nulla alia re nisa, 
sustentent: haec perpetua et con- 
stans fuit catholicae Ecclesiae doc- 


trina.’—- On the whole subject see 
Billuart, De Mente Ecclesiae circa 
Accidentia Eucharistica, Leodii 
1ı714.— Lately Dr. D. Coghlan has 
defended the opinion that the con- 
demnation of Wiclif’s second propo- 
sition does not oblige us to hold that 
the accidents have, after the conse- 
cration, no subject whatever (De 


„SS. Eucharistia, Dublin 1913). For 


a criticism of this view see the /rish 
Eccles. Record, 1913, pp. 437 8Sq4- 


EEE, 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 149 


lusions, phantasmagoria, or make-believe acci- 
dents. This view is derogatory to the traditional 
belief of the Church, as laid down in the writ- 
ings of the Fathers and the Schoolmen, and 
in the definitions of several ecumenical coun- 
cils. 

a) Ihe Fathers draw a clear-cut and some- 
times even exaggerated distinction between the 
“visible sign” (species panis et vini) and the “in- 
visibly present Body and Blood of Christ” (cor- 
pus et sanguis invisibiliter praesens). 


Some represent the sacramental sign as a “type,” 
“symbol” or “figure” of the Body of Christ. This is 
ambiguous, but no doubt these Fathers regarded the sac- 
ramental sign as something as objective and physi- 
cal as the Body itself. Atzberger 17 summarizes their 
teaching as follows: “ These Fathers clearly distin- 
guish between the visible element and the invisible Body 
of Christ, and refer to the former as mpaéypa émiyeov 8 as 
avTo TO VALKOv,'? aS dawonevos apTos,”° as alodyra mpdypata,”* 
as signum or sacramentum corporis Christi? When 
the Monophysites concluded from the fact of the con- 
version of the bread and wine into the Flesh and Blood 
of Christ that there was also a conversion of our Sav- 
iour’s humanity into His Divinity, their Catholic op- 
ponents expressly declared that the mystical symbols do. 


17 In the continuation of Schee- 20 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech, 
ben's Dogmatik, Vol. IV,- 2, pp Myst, IV, .n.'0. 
607 sq., Freiburg 1901. 21 St. Chrysostom, Hom. in 
18 St, Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., IV, Matth., 83, n. 4. : 
Ganley ts >. 22 St. Augustine, C. Adimant., c. 


19 Origen, In Matth., Ape TAs 12, n. 3; Ipem, Epist. 98, n. 9. 


150 THE REAL PRESENCE 


not lose their oixeia @vois through the consecration,2® but 
the nature of the bread remains,” and that it does not 
29 Atzberger is right in attaching 
considerable importance to the controversial attitude of 
the Fathers towards the Monophysites; for it plainly 


lose its aisfyrn obcia. 


appears from the Patristic writings directed against these | 


heretics that.the Church asserted both the reality of the 
Eucharistic accidents and their identity before and after 
Transubstantiation. Thus Theodoret in his second 
Dialogue tells his Monophysitic opponent: “ You are 
caught in the net which you yourself have spread; for 
the mystic symbols do not lose their nature after the 
consecration, but remain in the figure and the sensible 
form of their essence; they are visible and can be seen 
and touched as before.” ** Had the Fathers regarded 
the Eucharistic species as optical delusions, they would 
not have used such strong language nor neglected a 
middle term by means of which they could have effec- 
tively combated the Monophysitic notion that the hu- 
manity of Christ is converted into His Divinity. 


b) The Schoolmen unanimously inculcated the 
physical reality of the Eucharistic accidents and 
their identity before and after Transubstantia- 
tion. In taking this attitude these writers were 
moved by philosophical as well as theological con- 
siderations. 


Descartes (1596-1650) was the first philosopher who 
placed the essence of corporeal substances in their actual 


23 Cfr. Theodoret, Dial., I 25 Ephraem of Antioch, in Migne, 
(Migne, P. G., LX XXIII, 168), PING CHE, 3,080: 

24 Pseudo-Chrysostom, Ep. ad 26 Dial’ TLii=(Migne, Pir G 
Cesar. _(Migne, P. G., LII, 758). LXXXIII, 168). 


a ee ss dan ar a ed ee 
=f Zep ial Be Ns Bile Behe 


ys. aie “eo 


ios 
a a 


es Tae 


Br 


DE a En ET Ne Che ee ene u er en et 


IE 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION I5I 


extension and recognized only modal accidents metaphys- 
ically united with their substance. According to his 
theory, the Eucharistic accidents simply cannot exist 
without a subject, but disappear as soon as the sub- 
stances of bread and wine are converted into the Body 
and Blood of Christ. To adapt the Catholic teaching to 
the “new philosophy,” some theologians of the seyen- 
teenth and eighteenth centuries declared the Eucharistic 
species to be delusions caused by God in the senses. 
The inventor of this theory of apparences eucharistiques 
was E. Maignan, ©. M.?”’ He was followed by J. 
Saguens, J. Perrimezzi, A. Pissy, Drouin,?® and Witasse.?? 
The Church at first showed great tolerance towards 
the Cartesians, but in course of time found herself com- 
pelled to oppose them. Thus, in 1694, the S. Congre- 
gation of the Index condemned the proposition that 
“ The Eucharistic accidents are not real asien > but 
mere illusions and optical make-believes.” 

The great majority of contemporary and later theo- 
logians rejected the Cartesian theory as inconsistent 
with ecclesiastical tradition, contrary to the festimony 
of the senses, opposed to the true concept of Transub- 
stantiation, repugnant to the correct notion of a Sacra- 
ment, which requires a visible sign, and incompatible 
with the phrase “ fractio pants” applied to the Eucharist 
in Holy Scripture. 


27 Philosophia Sacra, Vol. I, ce. Cartesian theory we must refer the 
22. student to Billuart, De Eucharistia, 
28De Re Sacramentaria, Wan, diss. 1, art. 6, $ 2. The history of 
802 the controversy may be studied in 
29 De Eucharistia, sect. 2, qu. 2, Theoph. Raynaud, S. J., Exuviae 
art. 3.- Panis et Vint (Opera, Vol. VI, pp. 
30.“ Eucharistiae accidentia non 419 sqq.), Lyons 1665, and I. Sa- 
accidentia realia, sed merae illu- lier, O. M., Historia Scholastica de 


siones et praestigia oculorum sunt,” Speciebus Eucharisticis, Lyons 1687, 
81 For a fuller discussion of the : 


152 THE REAL PRESENCE 


c) As for the conciliary definitions on this 
subject, it is not necessary to add a great deal to 
what we have previously quoted from the councils 
of Constance and Trent. | 


The Cartesians claimed that the Council of Trent, in 
employing the term “species panis et vini,’*? did not 
mean to say that the appearances of bread and wine after 
the consecration are real accidents.** But it is a fact 


that the Council of Constance, in speaking of the same 


thing, deliberately uses the term “accidentia.’” If Mar- 
tin V in his questionary for suspected Wiclifites and 
Hussites again employs “ species,’ ** this simply proves 
that “species” and “accidentia” were regarded as 
synonymous terms. There can be no doubt that the Coun- 
cil of Trent employs “species” exclusively in its scho- 
lastic signification of “species sensibilis,’ which is an 
“accidens reale,’ and not in the Cartesian sense 
of “species intentionalis,’ which was a later inven- 
tion. 


3. THE PHILOSOPHIC POSSIBILITY OF ABSO- 


LUTE ACCIDENTS.—Leaving the domain of doc- . 


trine for that of philosophical speculation, we 
find ourselves on uncertain ground. To justify 
the Church’s teaching in the matter, however, 
nothing more is necessary than to show that the 


833 Sess. XIII, can. 2. in sacramento altaris sub speciebus 
83 Witasse, strangely enough, panis et vini veraciter continen- 
sings a hymn of praise to Providence tur”) from the terrible mistake 
for having preserved the Tridentine of employing the term “ accidentia ” 
Council, as well as the Fourth Coun- instead of “ species.” : 
cil of the Lateran before it (Cap. 84 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 
“ Firmiter,” apud Denzinger-Bann- 666 sq. 
wart, n. 430: “Corpus et sanguis 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 153 


concept of absolute or substanceless accidents in- 
volves no metaphysical contradiction. 

a) Modal accidents, of course, by their very 
definition, cannot be separated from their under- 
lying subjects. But there are other accidents 
(e. g. corporeal quantity), the separate existence 
of which involves no intrinsic contradiction. 


Accidents of the last-mentioned kind are called abso- 
lute, because their objective reality is quite distinct from 
that of their underlying substance.*® Aristotle defined 
quantity as a phenomenon of substance.*® It was merely 
a logical deduction from this statement to say, as the 
Schoolmen did, that quantity may be separated from its 
subject and, therefore, is capable of continuing to exist 
independently. There is no intrinsic contradiction in- 
volved in this assertion, for it has not been and cannot 
be proved that an accident derives its entire being solely 
from its underlying subject, or that actual (which dif- 
fers from purely aptitudinal) inherence is of the very 
nature of an accident.?’ For the rest, our knowledge of 
material substances and their accidental qualities is still 
so meagre that the greatest uncertainty exists among the 
learned concerning the nature of matter, one system pull- 
ing down what another has reared. To explain the spirit- 
ual by the material, as Materialism tries to do, is foolish, 
because matter is practically an unknown quantity, about 
which we know even less than we do about the soul, its 


85 Suarez, Metaph., disp. 7, sect. 
Xs 
86 Metaph., VI, 3 (ed. Bekker, 
Pp. 1029, a, 13): To dé unkos kal 
mX\aros Kal Bddos mocdryTes TIVes, 
AAN ovK obala’ TO yap moodv ovK 
ovola, adAa& paddov @ Umapxel 


TaUTA TpwTw, Ekeiv6 EoTı N ovcia- 

87 Cfr. Palmieri, Instit. Philos., 
Vol. I, pp. 366 sqq., Rome 1874; 
Gutberlet, Allgemeine Metaphysik, 
4th ed., pp. 62 sqq., Münster 1906; 
P. Coffey, Ontology, pp. 240 sqq., 
London 1914. 


154 THE REAL PRESENCE 

qualities and powers. One of the keenest of modern 
philosophers, Leibniz (1646-1716), expressed himself as 
follows on this problem: °° “ As there are many eminent 
and clever men, especially among the members of the 
Reformed Church, who, deeply imbued with the princi- 
ples of a new and captivating philosophy [Cartesianism], 
imagine that they can clearly and distinctly perceive that 
the essence of a body consists in its extension, and acci- 
dents are mere modi of their substance and consequently 
can no more exist without, or be separated from, their 
subject than the uniformity of the periphery can be de- 
tached arom. ‚the .circle,.\ 30. we, deem) it) our duty to 
come to their aid... . . We, too, have occupied ourselves: 
assiduously with mathematical, mechanical and experi- 
mental studies, and at first inclined to the same view 
which we now criticize. But in course of time we were 
compelled by our researches to return to the principles of 
the ancient philosophy [7. e. Scholasticism], . . . which 
are by no means so confused and absurd as they seem 
to those who-ridicule Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, 
and other illustrious men as if they were mere school- 
hoyazı, 


b) The old theology tried to prove the possi- 
bility of absolute accidents on the basis of Hylo- 
morphism. Some present-day theologians would 
like to come to an understanding with modern 
science by adopting Dynamism. There are other 
philosophical systems which openly contradict the 


88 Leibniz, Systema Theol., c. 48 
sq., Paris 1719. 

39 On the separability of absolute 
accidents from their underlying sub- 
jects see. further‘ LT. Pesch, ‚S. ]J., 
Philosophia Naturalis, pp. 399 sqq., 


: 599. 


2nd ed., Freiburg 1897; J. Rickaby, 
S. J., General Metaphysics, pp. 267 
New York 1890; H. Haan, 
S. J., Philosophia Naturalis, pp. 19 
sqq., Freiburg 1894. 


SPECULATIVE, DISCUSSION 155 


Church’s teaching, but they are equally opposed 
to reason and experience. 


a) Aristotelean-Scholastic Hylomorphism holds that 
bodies are constituted by the union of primordial matter 
(materia prima, öAn pam) with a substantial form 
(forma substantialis, popdy ovowdys, evtTeAcxera) ; that 
there is a real distinction between corporeal substance 
and its quantity ; that the two are separable, and that by 
divine power the latter can exist without the former. 

The Schoolmen explain this as follows: A body (cor- 
pus, vn devrepa) is a substance composed of matter and 
form. Quantity (quantum, moody) is that by which a 
body has extension in space. The two notions and their 
underlying entities are entirely distinct from each other, 
and therefore separable. Quantity is perceived by the 
senses, whereas substance can be recognized only by the 
intellect. 

It is objected that this theory, by separating quan- 
tity from substance, raises an accident, which is ens in 
alio, to the rank of a substance (ens in se), which would 
be an intrinsic contradiction. St. Thomas refutes this 
as follows: “The other accidents which remain in 
this sacrament are subjected in the dimensive quantity 
of the bread and wine that remains: first of all, because 
something having quantity and color and affected by 
other accidents is perceived by the senses, nor is sense 
deceived in stich. Secondly, because the first disposi- 
tion of matter is dimensive quantity; ... third, be- 
cause .. . dimensive quantity is the principle of indi- 
viduation.” *° At the present time it is necessary to take 


40 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 77, art. quantitate dimensiva pants vel vini 
2: “ Necesse est dicere, accidentia remanente: primo quidem per hoc 
alia, quae remanent in hoc sacra- quod ad sensum apparet, quantum 
mento, esse sicut in subiecto in esse ibi coloratum et alüs accidenti- 


156 THE REAL OPRESENCE 


into consideration the theory that colors and sounds as 
such are not inherent in bodies but have their objective 
raison d’etre in the undulations of the ether.* 

ß) By Dynamism we here understand not the philo- 
sophic system associated with the names of Herbart, 
Ulrici, Kant, and Schelling, but the theory which holds 
that elementary substances are endowed with certain 
fundamental energies whose effects are distinct from 
both and can therefore be supplied by the First Cause. 
This theory was broached by Leibniz and developed by 
Franzelin.*” Hurter explains it briefly as follows: 
The fundamental power of matter, to which all others, 
such as the force of gravity, density, and color, may be 
reduced, is energy or the power of resistance (vis resi- 
stentiae, évépyaa). As force is not conceivable without its 
manifestation, or energy without its effect, it is necessary 
to distinguish between vis and impetus, évépyea and 
Evepynpa. While energy enters into the essence of mat- 
ter, its manifestation or effect (évépynua) is really dis- 
tinct from it, and may miraculously continue after the 
material substratum is gone. 

This explanation has the advantage of conforming 
more closely than any other yet proposed, to modern 
physics, which reduces the powers of nature to pure 
movements and applies to them the mathematical prin- 
ciples of mechanics.** Since Newton three systems of 
natural philosophy have successively attracted the minds 
of men: the dynamic theory (Newton), the kinetic the- 


bus affectum, nec in talibus sensus 41 Cfr. Gutberlet, Psychologie, 4th 
decipitur; secundo quia prima dis- ed., pp. 14 sqq., Münster 1904. 
positio materiae est quantitas dı- 42 De Eucharistia, thes. 12. 
MeNSiVa . . .5 tertio QUAd N, 43 Cfr. A. Secchi, L’Unita delle 
quantitas dimensiva est quoddam in- Forze Fisiche, Rome 1864; German 
dividuationis principium.’’ tr., Die Einheit der Naturkräfte, 2 


vols., 3rd ed., Leipzig 1892. 


* 


Ss \ N 


SPECULATIVE) DISCUSSION 157 
ory (Lord Kelvin, Secchi), and the energetic theory © 
(Ostwald). A close analysis shows that these theories 
are not opposed to one another but can be reconciled and 
combined at least in their main features. ‘‘ When physi- 
-cal science shall have attained its final perfection at 
some distant date in the future,” says Father L. Dressel, 
S. J., “it will see every natural process alike as dynamic, 
kinetic, and energetic, for one perception presupposes 
the others. Without movement and tension there is no 
energy. Energy in all its forms demands in the body 
which possesses it a disposition or condition by which it 
becomes effective.” ** Since the traditional view can be 
easily reconciled with this teaching, it follows that the 
atomic theory, with which the dynamic, the kinetic, and 
the energetic theory alike stand or fall, is not opposed to 
the dogmatic teaching of the Church on the Eucharist, as 
some timid souls imagine. For this reason it would be 
unwise to reject a priori the solutions devised by Ton- 
giorgi *° and Palmieri * on the basis of the atomic theory, 
especially since these writers admit the objective resist- 
ance and the imponderable materia of ether, respectively, 
as objective realities in the converted substances of 
bread and wine. Even so staunch a peripatetic as 
Father Tilmann Pesch, S. J., believes that Tongiorgi’s 
as well as Palmieri’s views can be reconciled with the 
dogmatic teaching of the Church.” Really the only 
thing that can be said against Tongiorgi and Palmieri is 


christtanas_ doctrinas accommodari 
fortasse satis - potest. Adest enim 


44 Lehrbuch der Physik nach den 
neuesten Anschauungen, Vol. II, 


ard ed., p. 1036, Freiburg 1905. 
45 Cosmologia, n. 237. 
46 Instit. Philos., Vol. II, pp. 182 


sqq., Rome 1875. 
47 T. Pesch, Inst. Phil. Nat., 2nd 
ed., p. 401, Freiburg 1897: “Et 


haec quidem explicandi ratio ad 


signum sensibile obiectivum; servan- 
tur species panis et vini; id quod 
permanet, non pant tnhaeret; acci- 
dentia manent sine subiecto; adest 
conversio, quum aliquid maneat 
commune.” 


158 THE REAL PRESENCE 


that they do not sufficiently safeguard the identity of the 
Eucharistic accidents before and after the consecration. 
But this is not an insuperable difficulty, since even the 
quantitas separata of the Schoolmen cannot be conceived 
as a strictly identical, ever ready, and purely static 
reality.*® 

y) The Church, in teaching that the Eucharistic acci- 
dents continue to exist without a subject, does not wish 
to restrict Catholics to any particular view of natural 
philosophy, nor does she compel her theologians to base 
their teaching on medieval physics. All that she demands 
is that they eschew such theories as openly contradict her 
teaching and are at the same time repugnant to experience 
and sound reason, e. g. Pantheism, which deifies nature, 
Hylozoism (Panpsychism) in its different forms (the 
Monadism of Leibniz, the Voluntarism of Schopenhauer 
and Wundt, the “Philosophy of the Unconscious ” 
of Eduard von Hartmann), Monism, Cartesianism, 
eine 


4. THE RELATION OF THE EUCHARISTIC SPE- 
CIES TO THE Bopy OF CHRIST AND THE MoDpE oF 
PREDICATION RESULTING THEREFROM.—We have 
seen that in the Blessed Sacrament the Body and 
Blood of Christ is present under the appearances 
of bread and wine. How are reality and appear- 
ance united? Upon the answer to this question 
will depend the Eucharistic law of predication, 
1. e. the correct way of speaking of the Body and 


48 Cfr. G. C. Ubaghs, Du Dyna- 49 Cfr. Gutberlet, Naturphilo- 
misme dans ses Rapports avec la sophie, 3rd ed., pp. 5 sqq. Münster 
Sainte Eucharistie, Louvain 1861. 1900. 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION _’ 159 


Blood of our Lord in their relation to the acci- | 
dents of bread and wine.” 

a) What are the mutual relations between 
Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and the Eucha- 
ristic species? In answering this question we 
must beware of two extremes. 


The first of these is the assumption of a physical 
union between Christ and the Eucharistic accidents. This 
is impossible because the accidents of bread and wine 
cannot become accidents of Christ’s Body and Blood, nor 
are they capable of entering into a Hypostatic Union with 
His Person. 

The other false extreme against which we must guard 
is that the body of Christ, in consequence of a positive 
' divine command, is united in a merely external way with 
the place in which the consecrated host happens to be.*? 
This view imperils the unity of the Holy Eucharist, 
makes it impossible to adore the host as such,>? and 
difficult to explain why the Sacred Body invariably ac- 
companies the consecrated host. Some say that Christ 
voluntarily follows the host wherever it is carried. If this 
is true, the union existing between the Sacred Body of 
Christ and the Eucharistic species must be more than 
purely local. 

But if it is neither physical nor purely local, how are 
we to conceive this union? . 

Oswald says it is a “relation of dependence,’ which 
is a correct description but affords no explanation. 
Other theologians define the union between Christ and 

50 On predication in general see, 51 This view was defended by 


Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 186 Duns Scotus. 
sqq. 52 V. supra, pp. 136 sqq. 


160 THE REAL PRESENCE 


the Eucharistic accidents as a unio physica effectiva, be- 
cause the preservation of the substanceless accidents is 
due not directly to God but to a miraculous power pro- 
ceeding from the Eucharistic Body of Christ, which sup- 
ports the appearances bereft of their natural substances 
and preserves them from collapse.°® 


b) This sacramental union (as it had best be 
called) between the Eucharistic Body of our Lord 
and the appearances of bread and wine results 
in a sort of communication of idioms,’* from 
which the following rules of predication may be 


deduced: 


(1) Predicates which suppose a physical union between 
Christ’s Body and the Eucharistic accidents must not be 
transferred from the latter to the former. Hence it 
would be wrong to say: “ The Body of Christ is round, 
tastes sweet, looks white,” etc., or: “The Blood of 
Christ has a light color, tastes like sour wine, quenches 
the thirst,” etc. These predicates apply to the Eucha- 
ristic species exclusively. The chief offenders against 
this rule were the so-called Stercoranists, who were 
charged with believing that the Body of the Lord is di- 
gested and excreted (stercus, excrement) like any other 
food. Whether Stercoranism has ever had adherents 
within the Catholic pale is somewhat doubtful. Among 
those charged with this absurdity were Origen and Rha- 
banus Maurus, but in either case the accusation seems to 
be based upon a misunderstanding. Other Catholic writ- 
ers suspected of Stercoranist views were Bishop Heribald 

53 This is more fully explained 54 V. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 


by De Lugo, De Euchar., disp. 6, pp. 184 sqq. 
sect. ı .Sqdq. 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 161 


of Auxerre (+ 857), Amalarius of Metz (+ about 
857), and the Greek Nicetas (+ about 1050). During 
the time of the Protestant Reformation the charge was 
sophistically urged by the Calvinists against their Lu- 
theran opponents.”® 

(2) Predicates based upon the sacramental union may 
be indiscriminately applied to the Body of our Lord 
and to the Eucharistic species. This rule is founded 
upon the unity of the Sacrament. Hence it is correct 
to say: “The Body of Christ is eaten by the faithful,” 
“The Sacred Body is carried around in procession,” etc. 

(3) Such predicates as move along a middle line may 
be applied to the Eucharistic species"only in an im- 
proper or a figurative sense. In doubtful cases it is best 
to follow the custom of the Church, the Fathers, and re- 
putable theologians. The graphic formula to which 
Berengarius was compelled to subscribe, in 1079,°° was 
modeled upon the language of St. Chrysostom and other 
Fathers. Such expressions as, “The Body is com- 
mingled with the Blood,” or, “ If the Blood freezes in the 
chalice,” 5” are permissible, though in their literal and 
proper sense the affirmations contained therein apply to 
the species only.°® 

55 Cfr. C. M. Pfaff, De Sterco- 


ranistis, Tübingen 1750. For further 
bibliographical data see the New 


tari, frangi et fdelium dentibus 
atteri.” 


“57 Rubric. Missal., De Defect., X, 


Schaf-Herzog Encyclopedia of Re- 
ligious Knowledge, Vol. XI, p. 86. 

56 “Verum corpus Iesu Christi in 
veritate manibus sacerdotum trac- 


/ 


Tle 
58 Cfr. De Lugo, De Euchar., 
disp. 6, sect. 3; Heinrich-Gutberlet, 
Dogmat. Theol., Vol. IX, § 542. 


SECTION*2 


SECOND APPARENT CONTRADICTION: THE SPIRIT- 
LIKE MODE OF EXISTENCE OF CHRIST’S 
EUCHARISTIC BODY 


I. STATE OF THE QUESTION.—It is of faith 
that the Body of Christ is really, truly, and sub- 
stantially present in the Holy Eucharist under 
the species of bread. 

It is also of faith that the Body of Christ is 
present in its entirety in the whole of the sacred 
Host and in each of its parts, in a manner similar 
to that in which the human soul is present in the 
body. 

This teaching quite naturally gives rise to a. 
difieulty: How can a material body exist after 
the manner of spirits (ad modum spirituum) 
without losing its quantity, form, etc. ? 


The difficulty is enhanced: by the consideration that 
there is no question here of the Soul or the Divinity of 
Christ, but of His Body, which, with its head, trunk, and 
members, assumes a mode of existence spirit-like and in- 
dependent of space. About such a mode of existence 
neither experience nor philosophy can give us the least 
information. Not even the glorified body of our Sa- 
viour after the Resurrection, though in more than one 

162 


SPECULATIVE) DISCUSSION 163 
respect itself a cpa mveuparıröov, can give us an inkling 
in regard to the mode of existence proper to the Eucha- 
ristic Body. Christ, at the Last Supper, transferred His 
mortal and passible body, as yet unglorified, into that 
sacramental mode of existence which has no counterpart 
even in the supernatural order of things. Even the 
separability of quantity from substance? gives us no clue 
to the solution of the present problem, since according to 
the best-founded opinions,® not only the substance of 
Christ’s Body, but its corporeal quantity (conceived as 
distinct from the Body) is present within the diminutive 
limits of the Host and in each portion thereof.* Va- 
rignon, Rossignol, Legrand, and other theologians have 
resorted to the explanation that Christ is present in 
diminished form and stature, in a sort of miniature body ; 
while Oswald, Casajoana, Fernandez, and others assume 
with no better sense of fitness the mutual compenetration 
of the members of Christ’s Body to within the narrow 
compass of a pin-point. The Scholastics rejected both 
these opinions.® The vagaries of the Cartesians, how- 
ever, exceeded all bounds. This school was hard put 
to reconcile its theory of actual extension as the essence 
of material bodies with the dogma of the totality of the 
Real Presence. Descartes himself, in two letters to 
Pere Mesland,° expressed the opinion that only the Soul 
of Christ becomes present in the Eucharistic species, and 
that the identity of the Eucharistic Body with the heav- 


1Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 
Baus ST, Kart.) 3: 

2V. Sect. 1, supra. 

3 Against Durandus. 

4 Cfr. St. Bonaventure, Comment. 
in. Sent., IV, dist. 10, p. 1, qu. 2: 
“Quamvis substantia possit ab- 
strahi a quantitate, tamen quod cor- 
pus vivat et sit organicum et non 


sit quantum, hoc nec esse nec in- 
tellegi potest.’ 

5 Toletus says (Comment. in 
Say The HILL, gu.) 76, art? A): 0 Ista 
sententia conatur mysterium ad 
suum captum trahere, in quo de- 
cipitur, quia corpus Christi esset 
modo ridiculo.” 

6 Edit. Emery, Paris 1811. 


164 THE REAL PRESENCE 


enly Body of Christ is preserved by the identity of His 
Soul, which animates both bodies and their quantities. 
This monstrous notion was vigorously combated by Ar- 
nauld, Bossuet, Fabri, Viogné, and other contemporary 
theologians. The geometrician Varignon attempted to 
improve upon Descartes’ theory by suggesting that the 
consecration and the subsequent breaking of the Eucha- 
ristic species results in a true multiplication of the Eucha- 
ristic Bodies upon earth, which are faithful, though 
greatly reduced miniature copies of their prototype, i. e. 
Christ’s heavenly Body. Consecration itself, he said, 
effects the conversion of bread and wine into organic 
bodies, and it is precisely in this that Transubstantiation 
essentially consists.? 

The genuine teaching of Catholic theology as against 
these vagaries is voiced thus by St. Thomas: “ Since 
the substance of Christ’s Body is not really deprived of 
its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, it follows 
that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive 
quantity of Christ’s Body and all its other accidents are 
in this Sacrament.” ® 

As ours is an age of what may be termed hypergeo- 
metrical speculation, it may not be amiss to add that the 
modern theory of n-dimensions throws no light on this 
subject. For the Body of Christ is not invisible or im- 
palpable to us because it occupies the fourth dimension, 
but because it transcends space and is wholly independent 
of it. 

Here lies the second antinomy or apparent contradic- 


BCE ET, Souben, Nouvelle quantitate dimensiva et ab aliis acci- 
Theologie Dogmatıque, Vol. VII, dentibus, inde est quod ex vi realis 


pp. 118 sqq., Paris 1905. concomitantiae est in hoc sacra- 
8 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 76, art. mento tota quantitas dimensiva cor- 
4: “ Quia substantia corporis Chri- poris, Christi et omnia accidentia 


sti realiter non dividitur a sua eins.” 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 165 


tion which we are attempting to solve. We must al- 
ways remember that the mode of existence peculiar to 
the Eucharistic Body of Our Lord does not come within 
the scope of physics or mechanics, but belongs as strictly 
to the supernatural order as the virgin birth of Christ, 
His resurrection from a sealed tomb, His transfigura- 
tion, etc.2 As these examples show, there is a ‘‘ mechan- 
ics of the supernatural,” the laws of which do not agree 
with those of ordinary human experience.’® It is neces- 
sary also, in solving the problem under consideration, to 
adhere firmly to the truth of the real and genuine cor- 
poreity of Christ’s Eucharistic Body. There is in the 
Blessed Sacrament of the Altar neither a conversion of 
matter into spirit, nor a separation of dimensive quan- 
tity from substance. The problem may therefore be for- — 
mulated thus: How can divisible and extended matter 
and a normally constituted organism exist in a spatially 
uncircumscribed manner, such as is peculiar to imma- 
terial souls and pure spirits? | 


2. SCHOLASTIC SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM.— 
The Schoolmen (notably Suarez, Bellarmine, De 
Lugo, Ysambert, Lessius, and Billuart) offer the 
following solution: Quantity is either internal 
or external. Internal quantity (quantitas interna 
s. in actu primo) is that entity by virtue of which 
a corporeal substance merely possesses aptitudinal 
extension, 7. e. the capability of being extended 
in tri-dimensional space. External quantity 
(quantitas externa s. in actu secundo), on the 


9 Cfr. 1 Cor. XV,.36 sqq. 
10 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucharistie, III, 6. 


166 THE REAL PRESENCE 


other hand, is the same entity in so far as it fol- 
lows its natural tendency to occupy space and ac- 
tually extends itself in the three dimensions. 
While aptitudinal extension or internal quantity 
is so bound up with the essences of bodies that 
its separability from them would involve a meta- 
physical contradiction, external quantity is only 
a natural consequence and effect, which can be 
suspended or withheld by the First Cause, so that 
the corporeal substance, retaining its internal 
quantity, does not actually extend itself into space. 


a) Though in itself the mere substance of the Body of 
Christ could exist in the Blessed Sacrament without any 
quantity at all, just as the quantity of the bread exists 

‚without its substance, yet it is theologically certain that 
in matter of fact the Body is entirely present with its 
whole quantity.1* If quantity is present, there must be 
bodily extension (positio partium extra partes), for it is 
in this that quantity essentially consists. Now this ex- 
tension is not actual; it is merely aptitudinal, 7. e. ca- 
pable of being actually extended in the three dimensions, 
but prevented therefrom by the omnipotence of God. 
In other words, the sacred Body of Christ in the Holy 
Eucharist possesses internal but it does not possess ex- 
ternal quantity. Both aptitudinal and actual extension 
are formal effects of quantity as such, though in a dif- 
ferent way. The one is primary and essential, the other 
secondary and non-essential. The one is the principle and 
cause, the other a consequence and an effect. Internal 
quantity belongs per reductionem to the Aristotelian cate- 


11 V. Sect. 1, supra. 12V. No. 1, supra. 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 167 
gory of quantum (moody), while external quantity apper- 
tains to that of situs (keiodaı). The former can exist 
without the latter, but not vice versa. Hence the two 
are distinct and separable. While the Body of Christ 
in the Eucharist is prevented by the First Cause from 
exercising its natural tendency to occupy space, it never- 
theless exists wholly and full size, without however ex- 
tending itself through space. 

By way of illustration we may refer to the miracle of 
the three children in the furnace. In preserving them 
from harm, God did not interfere with the essence of 
the fire into which they were cast, but merely suspended 
its natural effects. In a similar manner, He does not 
destroy the essence of quantity in the Holy Eucharist, 
but merely suspends one of its natural effects, 7. e. ex- 
tension in space. 

The distinction between internal and external quan- 
tity may be brought nearer to the human mind by a con- 
sideration taken from higher mathematics. In applying 
the infinitesimal calculus, mathematicians deal not only 
with finite but likewise with infinitesimally small quan- 
tities, 7. e., quantities that may be made as small as we 
please without affecting the use to which they are to be 


13 The trite objection: “ Corpus 
Christi in Eucharistia foret sine 


quaerenti, cur quantitas sit extensa 
in loco, cur sit impenetrabilis, etc., 


quantitate,” is answered by Billuart 
as follows (De Eucharistia, diss. 1, 
art. 4, § 3): “ Quoad primarium 
eius effectum, nego; quoad secun- 
darium eius effectum, concedo. 
Primarius effectus quantitatis est 
extensio et coordinatio partium in 
ordine ad se et in toto; secundarius 
est extensio et coordinatio partium 
im ordine ad locum. Prius est enim 
quantitatem extendi in se quam ex- 
tendi in loco, quam -esse impene- 
trabilem, divisibilem, etc. Unde 


vecte respondetur quia est extensa 
in se; quaerenti vero, cur sit ex- 
tensa in se, nulla est ratio prior 
quam quia est quantitas. Porro pot- 
est effectus secundarius quantitatis 
divinitus ab ipsa separari, prout de 
facto separatus est, quando Christus 
exivit ex utero virginali clauso et 
de sepulcro non revoluto lapide, 
item quando intravit ad discipulos 
tanuis clausis. Et ita separatur in 
Eucharistia.” 


168 THE REAL: PRESENCE 


put. Now a triangle. so infinitesimally small that its 
dimensions can be conceived only by the mind, may be 
called an “internal figure,” because it shrinks together 
to a point, and can no longer be represented as two- 
dimensional on a plain surface. Of course, the analogy 
with the Holy Eucharist is not perfect, because such a 
triangle, even though merely imaginary, always remains 
a true spatial figure.'* 

b) What we have just said of bodies in general, ap- 
plies also to organisms, for an organism is merely a 
body (a) composed of different organs or parts, (b) 
disposed in orderly fashion, and (c) subserving the func- 
tions of life. The first mark (a) distinguishes an organ- 
ism (plant, beast, man) from homogenous masses of 
matter (minerals) ; the second (b) distinguishes it from 
monstrosities, and the third (c) produces that organic 
unity which, assuming the principle of animation, guaran- 
tees the capacity to live. All three of these conditions are 


present in the Eucharistic Body of Christ, even though it — # 


lacks external quantity. Even a living organism need 
not occupy tri-dimensional space simply because it is 
composed of heterogeneous parts arranged in an orderly 
manner. Both in reality and notionally the internal 
disposition of the body precedes its external formation, 
which is bound to space and extends itself into it. 
“There is no confusion here,” says St. Bonaventure, 
“because, although the parts are not distinct according to 
their position in space, they are distinct according to 
their position in the whole, and consequently there is no 
confusion because there is position, which is the orderly 
arrangement of parts in a whole.” *° 

14 For the solution of this and 15 Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 


other dialectic difficulties see Tepe, 10, p. 1, qu. 4: “Non est ibi con- 
Inst. Theol., Vol. IV, pp. 243 saq. fusio, quia etsi parties non distin- 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 169 


c) The profoundest treatment of the subject 
is offered by St. Thomas, who traces the mode of 
existence peculiar to the Eucharistic Body to 
Transubstantiation, for the reason that a thing 
must “be” such as it was in “becoming.” 


How does the Body of Christ become present in the 
Eucharist by Transubstantiation? The Angelic Doctor 
‘answers this question as follows: “ Since the substance 
of Christ’s Body is present on the altar by the power of 
this Sacrament [?. e. by virtue of the words of consecra- 
tion], while its dimensive quantity is there concomi- 
tantly and as it were accidentally, therefore the dimen- 
sive quantity of Christ’s body is in this Sacrament not 
according to its proper manner [1. e. quantitatively, the 
whole in the whole and the individual parts in individual 
parts], but after the manner of substance, whose nature 
is to be whole in the whole, and whole in every part.” 7° 
Since ex vt verborum only the substance of Christ’s Body 
is present, and not its quantity,’” therefore the Body 
is present after the manner of a substance and not after 
the manner of a quantity, and consequently the Body of 
Christ is present in the Sacred Host unextended and 
indivisible. Quantity being merely present per concomi- 
tantiam, must follow the mode of existence peculiar to 
its substance, and, like the latter, must exist without di- 


guantur secundum positionem in loco, 
distinguuntur tamen secundum 


poris Christi, quantitas autem di- 
mensiva eius est ibi concomitanter 


positionem in toto, et ideo non est 
ibt confusio, quia est ibi positio, 
quae est ordinatio partium in toto.” 
Cfr. Franzelin, De Eucharistia, thes. 
Ir. 

16 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 76, art. 
4, ad 1: “Quia ex vi huius sacra- 
ments est in altari substantia cor- 


et quasi per accidens, ideo quantitas 
dimensiva corporis Christi est in hoc 
sacramento non secundum proprium 
modum, sed per modum substantiae, 
cuius natura est tola in toto et 
tota in qualibet parte,” 

17 Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, 
cap. 4. : 


170 THE REAL PRESENCE 


vision and extension, 7. e. entire in the whole Host and 
entire in each part thereof. In other words, as before 
the consecration the substance of bread was present in the 
whole and in all its parts under its own dimensions, 
so after the consecration there is present vi verborum, in 
the whole and in all its parts, first, the substance of 
the Body, and then, per concomitantiam, the full quan- 
tity of that Body, but under the foreign dimensions of 
the species of bread. And since the internal dimensions of 
Christ’s Body are incommensurable with the external di- 
mensions of the species, there is no common standard by 
which they could be measured. While the species occupy 
space and extend themselves in the three dimensions, the 
Body of Christ hidden beneath them remains unextended, 
transcending space and wholly independent of it."? 


d) The above explanation quite naturally 
gives rise to the question: Can the Eucharistic 
Body of Christ be said to be present in space? 
The dogmatic teaching of the Church that the 
Body of Christ is really and truly present in the 
Sacred Host decides this question in the affirma- 
tive. 


Hence what we have said above on the spirit-like and 
invisible existence of that Body in the Eucharist, does 
not touch the Real Presence as such, but merely its mode 
of existence. 

Philosophy distinguishes in creatures two modes of 
presence: (1) the circumscriptive and (2) the de- 
finitive. The first, the only mode of presence proper to 
bodies, is that by virtue of which an object is restricted 


18 Cfr. Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., § 62. 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 171 
to a defined portion of space in such wise that its 
various parts also occupy their corresponding positions 
in that space. From what we have said above it is evi- 
dent that Christ’s Body is not circumscriptively present 
in the Sacred Host. “ Christ’s Body is not in this sacra- 
ment circumscriptively,” says St. Thomas, “ because it is 
not there according to the commensuration of its own 
quantity.” 1° 

The second-mode of presence, that properly belonging 
to spiritual beings, requires that the substance of a thing 
exist in its entirety in the whole of the space as well as 
whole and entire in each part of that space. This is the 
soul’s mode of presence in the human body. As it also 
applies to the Eucharistic Body, we may say, as not a 
few theologians do, that the Body of Christ is definitively 
present in the Sacred Host. But we should not be per- 
mitted to say that Christ’s Body is present only in one 
place, because, as a matter of fact, it is truly present in 
Heaven and on thousands of altars. It is in this sense 
that St. Thomas says that “ Christ’s Body is not in this 
sacrament definitively, because then it would be only on 
the particular altar where this Sacrament is performed; 
whereas it is in Heaven under its own species, and on 
many other altars under the sacramental species.” 2 


3. THEOLOGICAL COROLLARIES.— From the 
peculiar manner in which Christ’s Body is pres- 


sic non esset alibi quam in hoc 
altari, ubi conficitur hoc sacramen- 
tum, quum tamen sit in coelo in 


19 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 76, art. 
5, ad 1: ‘ Patet quod corpus Chri- 
sti non est in hoc sacramento cir- 


cumscriptive, quia non est ibi secun- 
dum commensurationem propriae 
quantitatis.’’ 

20 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 76, art. 
5, ad 1: “Corpus Christi non est 
in hoc sacramento definitive, quia 


propria specie et in multis alüis al- 
taribus sub specie sacramenti.” 
Cfr. G. Reinhold, Die Lehre von 
der örtlichen Gegenwart Christi in 
der Eucharistie beim hl. Thomas von 
Aquin, Vienna 1893. 


172 THE REAL PRESENCE 


ent in the Eucharist there follow certain interest- 
ing and important corollaries, the value of which, 
on the whole, does not exceed that of theological 
conclusions. 


a) In the first place it is certain that the Eucharistic 
Body cannot be physically injured, not only because, be- 
ing glorified, it is impassible, but likewise because of its 
sacramental mode of existence.2+ Intimately connected 
with this quality is the imperceptibility of the Body. As 
it lacks actual extension, it does not fall under the senses. 

Can the human eye in the glorified state be capaci- 
tated for a supernatural vision of the Eucharistic Body? 
This question is answered in the affirmative by Vas- 
quez 22 and De Lugo,” but in the negative by St. Thomas 
and Suarez.2* ““Christ’s Body,” says the Angelic Doc- 
tor, “as it is in this Sacrament, cannot be seen by any 
bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible 
brings about an alteration in the medium, through its 
accidents. Now the accidents of Christ’s Body are in 
this Sacrament by means of the substance; so that the 
accidents of Christ’s Body have no immediate relation- 
ship either to this Sacrament or to adjacent bodies; con- 
sequently, they do not act on the medium so as to be 
seen by any corporeal eye. Secondly, because... 
Christ’s Body is substantially present in this Sacrament. 
But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, 
nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under 
the imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose 
object is what a thing 1s.” ” 


21Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, 23 De Eucharistia, disp. 9, sect. 2, 
disp.’ \53,, seet. 2. mn. 20 sqq. N 
22 Comment. in Summam Theol., 24 De Eucharistia, disp. 53, sect. 


TIT, disp.) 10% 16.2 de 
25 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 76, art. 7. 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 173 


b) Another theological conclusion of even greater im- 
portance, which is held by all Catholic divines with the 
sole exception of the Nominalist school, is that Christ 


in the Holy Eucharist is unable to use His limbs or to 


employ His external senses. The reason is that bodily 
movement and sense perception presuppose tri-dimen- 
sional extension (quantitas in loco s. externa), which 
the Eucharistic Body lacks. Hence, naturally speaking, 
Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament can neither see nor 
hear nor speak, nor move His own Body or those of 
others. The question has been raised whether, by a new 
miracle, He could give back to Himself the supernat- 
ural use of sight and hearing. There is no intrinsic 
contradiction in the assumption that God may supply the 
external causal influence of color and sound or raise the 
physiological power of Christ’s eyes and ears to a higher 
potency. It is quite another question whether Christ 
actually exercises such sense functions, 7. e., whether He 
actually sees those who kneel before Him in the Blessed 
Sacrament and actually.hears their prayers. Most theo- 
logians deny this. Those few who affirm it are com- 
pelled to assume a new miracle." Cardinal Cienfuegos, 
in a learned treatise entitled Vita Abscondita sub Specie- 
bus Velata,?? argues that our Divine Saviour empowers 
His sacramental Body to see and hear, in order not to be 
limited to a purely spiritual intercourse with His faithful 
children but to be able to see and hear them as they ap- 
pear before the Sacred Host to adore Him. As this as- 
sumption is not impossible and conforms both to the dig- 

26 Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia,  Sent., IV, dist. 10, p. 1, qu. 2): 
disp. 53, sect. 3. “Corpus Christi sive Christus ibi 

27 Among them are St. Bonaven- videt et audit, quamvis non loqua- 
ture, Ysambert, Lessius, Tanner, tur, ne deprehendatur.” 


Franzelin, Dalgairns, Gihr, etc. St. 28 Published in Rome, A. D. 1728. 
Bonaventure says (Comment. in 


4 


174 THE “REAL ‘PRESENCE 


nity of Christ’s sacred Humanity and the sublime pur- 
pose of the Blessed Sacrament, it may be entertained as 
“sententia probabilissima et pia.’ However, Cardinal 
Franzelin, who thus qualifies it, rightly warns against the 
misunderstanding as if without this hypothesis the 
Eucharistic Body would be lifeless and stolid, or as if 
our Divine Lord, unless He endowed His sacramental 
Body with this miraculous power, would remain unac- 
quainted with our inmost thoughts, wishes, and prayers. 
He in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells, knows 
all things, past, present, and future, as man no less than 
as God, by a higher form of perception than that exer- 
cised through the bodily senses. 


SECTION 3 


THIRD APPARENT CONTRADICTION: THE SIMUL- 
TANEOUS EXISTENCE OF CHRIST IN HEAVEN 
AND IN MANY PLACES ON EARTH 
( MULTILOCATION ) 


1. MuLTtıLocATIoNn DEFINED.—In the natural 
order of things a body is restricted to one po- 
sition in space (unilocatio). This is true also 
of every immaterial finite being (soul, spirit) 
which enters into relation with space. 

a) If an object be conceived as simultaneously 
present in two, three, or more places, we have 
bilocation, trilocation, etc., as the case may be. 
Multilocation, though outside of the natural or- 
der, involves no intrinsic contradiction. The ob- 
jection that “no being can exist separated from 
itself or with local distances between its various 
selves” is a sophism; for multilocation does not 
multiply the object but only its external relation 
to and presence in space. Multilocation may 
therefore be defined as “the simultaneous pres- 
ence of an object in several places.” 


b) An object may be simultaneously present in sev- 
eral places in one of four different ways: ; 
a) It may be definitively present with its substance 
not only in one particular point of space, but continu- 
175 


176 THE REAL PRESENCE 


ously beyond that point throughout a certain determinate 
portion of space, as the soul in the body. This is called 
continuous multilocation or replication (multilocatio con- 
tinua s. replicatio). 

ß) An object may be definitively and simultaneously 
present in several separate places, as would be the case if 
a departed soul appeared on earth by a virtual ex- 
tension of substance. This is called discontinuous mul- 
tilocation (multilocatio discreta rei definitive praesen- 
tis). 

y) An object existing circumscriptively, 7. e. a body 
in its natural state, may exist simultaneously in different 
places, as would be the case if divine omnipotence were 
to create the impression of a forest by the multilocation of 
a tree. This is called discontinuous circumscriptive mul- 
tilocation (multilocatio discreta circumscriptiva). 

58) A body may exist circumscriptively in one place 
and definitively in another, as would be the case if 
God were to cause a’person who exists circumscriptively 
in Paris, to exist at the same time definitively at 
Rome. This is known as mixed multilocation (multtlo- 
catio mixta s. praesentia eiusdem rei circumscriptiva in 
uno loco, definitiva in alio). 

The three last-mentioned species of multilocation are 
plainly supernatural and can be brought about only by a 
miracle. | 


2. THE MULTILOCATION OF THE Bopy OF 
CHRIST IN HEAVEN AND Upon THOUSANDS OF 
ALTARS THROUGHOUT THE WorLD.—In the mys- 
tery of the Holy Eucharist we have exemplified 
all these different species of multilocation, with 
one exception. 


Ee 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 177 


There is, in the first place, continuous multilocation or 
replication. For the Body of Christ is present in the 
Sacred Host per replicationem continuam, 1. e. it is 
totally present, as the soul in the body, in each part of 
the continuous and as yet unbroken Host, and also totally 
present throughout the whole Host, just as the human 
soul is present in the body. 

There is, in the second place, discontinuous multiloca- 
tion, as Christ is present not only in one Host, but in 
numberless separate Hosts, whether in the ciborium or 
upon different altars. It is not a case of the multiloca- 
tion of one Host. There are as many consecrated Hosts 
as particles of bread were consecrated, and yet it is one 
and the same Body of Christ that is really and truly 
present in them all. 

There is, third, mixed multilocation, since Christ with 
His natural dimensions reigns in Heaven, whence He 
does not depart, and at the same time dwells in sacra- 
mental presence on numberless altars throughout the 
world. 

It is an article of faith that the Eucharistic Body of 
Christ is endowed with these three kinds of multilocation. 

In the case of the first mentioned kind, however, the 
distinction between ante et post separationem must be 
duly noticed. ae 

The fact of the Eucharistic multilocation proves that 
it is possible. The Tridentine Council says: “ For 
neither are these things mutually repugnant,— that our 
Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the 
Father in Heaven, according to the natural mode of ex- 
isting: [circumscriptive], and that, nevertheless, He be, in 
many other places, sacramentally present [definitive] to 


1V. supra, p. 98. 


178 ‘THE REAL ‘PRESENCE 


"us in His own substance, by a manner of existing which, 
though we can scarcely express it in words, yet by the 
understanding illuminated by faith, we can conceive, 
and ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto 
God.” * Encouraged by this pronouncement, speculative 
theology, with due precaution against the disturbing in- 
fluence of the imagination, attempts to clear up the mys- 
tery with the torch of philosophy and to show at least 
that multilocation involves no intrinsic contradiction. 


3. THE PuHILosopHic PossıBILITy oF MULTI- 
LOCATION.— Though the fourth species of multilo- 
cation is not verified in the Holy Eucharist, it 
will be necessary to discuss it in connection with 
the other three, for the reason that its denial in- 
volves a denial of mixed multilocation and, be- 
sides, it seems to have played an important role in 
the lives of some saints. 

a) The continuous definitive multilocation, 
also called replication, whereby the Body of 
Christ is totally present in each part of the con- 
tinuous and as yet unbroken Host, and also to- 
tally present throughout the whole Host, is easiest 
to understand because it has a splendid analogy 
in the presence of the human soul in the body.? 


2Conc. Trid., Sess. XIII, cap. 1: substantia nobis adsit ea existendi 


“Neque enim haec inter se repug- 
nant, ut ipse Salvator noster semper 
ad dextram Patris in coelis assideat 
iuxta modum existendi naturalem 
fi. e. circumscriptive], et ut multis 
nihilominus alüs in locis sacramen- 
taliter praesens [i. e. definitive] sua 


ratione, quam .etsi verbis exprimere 
vix possumus, possibilem tamen esse 
Deo cogitatione per fidem tillustrata 
assequi possumus et constantissime 
credere debemus.” (Denzinger-Bann- 
wart n. 874). 

3 V. supra, Ch. II, thes. 4. 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 179 


The soul is present with the totality of its substance in 
each part of the body, in the head, the trunk, the feet, 
the arms, etc. It is true that in the Eucharist there is a 
replication not only of the soul, but also and principally 
of the Body, whose natural manner of existence is not 
spiritual but circumscriptive. Since in the natural order 
of things each body is restricted to one position in space, 
so that before the law the proof of an alibi immediately 
frees a person from the suspicion of crime, the continuous 
multilocation of the Eucharistic Body of our Lord 
within the Sacred Host is doubtless an astonishing 
miracle of divine omnipotence. Yet it is made some- 
what intelligible to us by the proof that God in His 
omnipotence can supernaturally impart to a body such a 
spirit-like, unextended, spatially uncircumscribed mode ot 
presence as is natural to the soul in regard to the human 
body. 


b) The intrinsic possibility of discontinuous 
multilocation is based on the non-repugnance of 
continuous multilocation. 


The chief difficulty of the former appears to be that 
the same Christ with the totality of His substance and 
quantity is present in two different parts of space, A and 
B, of the continuous Host,— it being immaterial whether 
we consider the two points A and B connected by a con- 
tinuous line or not. The miracle is contained in the fact 
that the (inadequate) presences of the Body are divided 
by the distance of the line AB. Nor does it matter how 
great that distance may be. Whether or not the frag- 
ments of the Host are distant one inch or a thousand 
miles from one another, is altogether immaterial from 


Te THE REAL PRESENCE 


this point of view. Just as the soul does not become two 
individuals in consequence of its dwelling whole and en- 
tire in the head as well as in the toes of a man, the Body 
of Christ in the Eucharist does not become several in- 
dividuals in consequence of the fact that it dwells si- 
multaneously in tabernacles at Rome, Paris, London, 
and Jerusalem.* 


c) The difficulty becomes more complicated if 
we consider that Christ with His natural dimen- 
sions reigns in Heaven and at the same time 
dwells with His sacramental presence in num- 
berless hosts on earth. 


Is such a mixed multilocation possible? This case 
would be in perfect accordance with the foregoing were 
we per impossibile permitted to imagine that Christ 
is present in Heaven not im specie propria, but in 
Specie aliena, 1. e. under the form of bread, exactly as 
He is present in the Holy Eucharist. This, however, 
would be but one more marvel of God’s omnipotence, be- 
cause the circumscriptive mode of presence is as natural 
to the celestial Christ as the definitive mode of presence 
is supernatural. As the matter lies, we have simply one 
miracle less. But since the celestial Christ, despite His 
natural form, is individually identical with the Christ 
who is present in numberless Hosts on earth, there can 
be no contradiction in the fact that He retains His nat- 
ural dimensional relations in Heaven and at the same 
time dwells sacramentally on earth; for a different mode 
of existence no more destroys the individual unity and 


4 The objections against the mul- burg 1906, and by Tilmann Pesch, 
tilocatio discreta in general are well S. J., Philosophia Naturalis, 2d ed., 
treated by H. Haan, S. J., Philoso- pp. 517 sq., Freiburg 1897. 
phia Naturalis, pp. 44 sqq., Frei- 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 181 


identity of a subject than a difference of presence in 
space.’ 


d) We might pass over the fourth and last 
species of multilocation (multilocatio circum- 
scriptiva) as foreign to our subject, were it not 
for the circumstance that a discussion of it is apt 
to throw some light on the Holy Eucharist. 


a) De Lugo® shows that nearly all the objections 
raised against circumscriptive multilocation can be urged 
also against definitive multilocation. It is advisable, too, 
to pay some attention to the many cases of bilocation oc- 
curring in the legends of the saints. Some of them no 
doubt were nothing more than subjective apparitions. 
Others, however, can hardly be explained otherwise than 
by circumscriptive multilocation. Take, e. g., the miracle 
that occurred in the conversion of St. Paul before the 
gates of Damascus, when Christ appeared in person and 
said to him: “ Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” 
Withal, it is an obscure problem with which we are deal- 
ing, one involved in so many intrinsic difficulties that St. 
Thomas and other eminent theologians ® do not hesitate 
to admit that circumscriptive multilocation involves open 
contradictions. Others, however, notably Alexander of 
Hales, Duns Scotus,® Bellarmine, Suarez, and De Lugo, 
maintain its intrinsic possibility. The controversy is 
still unsettled. Of modern theologians Sanseverino, De 
San, Michael de Maria, Schneid, and others share the 


5V. supra, No. 1. IV, dist. 44, qu. 2, art. 2; Quodlib., 
6 De Eucharistia, disp. 5, sect. 1, qu. 3, art. 2), Henry of Ghent, 
n..15. Capreolus, Francis of Ferrara, Vas- 
7 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, quez, Sylvester Maurus et al. 
TITAN 3; 9 Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 


8 St. Thomas (Comment. in Sent., 10. 


182 THE REAL PRESENCE 


view of Aquinas, while Franzelin, Tilmann Pesch, Gut- 
berlet, Haan, Lahousse, etc., uphold the possibility of 
circumscriptive multilocation. If there were question 
of the vagaries of many Nominalists, as, e. g., that va 
bilocated person could be living in Rome and at the same 
time dying in Naples, or be acquitted in Paris and 
simultaneously condemned in London, the impossibility 
would be obvious, and we should have to thank the 
Thomists for bringing about a reaction, though they 
undoubtedly went too far in denying the possibility of 
circumscriptive multilocation altogether. 

ß) In order to clear up the existing confusion on the 
subject it is necessary to draw a clear-cut distinction 
between two different groups of determinations. Some 
belong to a bilocated individual absolutely, 7. e. with- 
out regard to external circumstances (e. g., life, in- 
telligence, reason, health, etc.), while others belong to him 
only in a relative manner, 7. e. in consideration of ex- 
ternal and local circumstances (e. g., position of the body 
in regard to the direction of the wind, difference in tem- 
perature, etc.). The leading principle with regard to all 
these determinations is thus set forth by Cardinal Bel- 
larmine: “It should be noted that one body which is 
present in different places has one substantial existence, 
but many local existences. Whence it happens that all 
those [determinations] must be multiplied which follow 
the esse locale, not however those which originate else- 
where than in the esse locale.” + It is quite evident, as 

10 As an example of a grievous si absolutam Dei potentiam specte- 
aberration we may cite Coninck, mus, quia aequivalet absolute duo- 
Comment. in Summam Theol., III, bus hominibus.” 

CUS 755) Jatt v4. dub ms, lin, 120: 11 Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, 
“Homo ita replicatus posset uno III, 4: “ Notandum est, unum 
loco comburi ac mori, peccare et conpus in pluribus locis positum 


st velis damnari, et alio frigere et habere unum esse substantiale, sed 
bergere vivere et mereri et salvari, multa esse localia. Ex qua fit ut 


SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 183 


regards the first group of determinants, that a bilocated 
individual cannot simultaneously assume into himself in- 
trinsically contradictory determinants, for because of the 
absolute identity of the subject with itself, its intrinsic 
properties follow the substance, not the place in which it 
exists, and hence a person simultaneously present in Lon- 
don and Paris cannot be living in good health in one city 
and dying in the other, and so forth, for this would in- 
volve an intrinsic contradiction. 

The case is different with the second group of deter- 
minants, i. e. those depending on local conditions. As 
these approach the bilocated subject from without, and 
do not affect his substance, there is no intrinsic contra- 
diction involved in the assertion that a number of them 
that are contradictory to one another may affect the 
same individual simultaneously, though in a different 
respect (sub diverso respectu). ‘Thus we find no contra- 
diction in the legend that the countenance of St. Alphon- 
sus in Santa Agata was turned to the north, while in 
Naples it looked towards the south. 

Sylvester Maurus expressed the apprehension that to 
admit the possibility of circumscriptive multilocation 
would endanger the empiric certainty regarding the real 
distinction between homogeneous natural bodies. Thus 
one would never be sure whether he had before him a 
single tree or a grove, and so forth. But this apprehen- 
sion is unfounded. For, in the first place, a miracle is 
never to be presumed except on the strictest evidence. 
Then, we perceive the difference between similarly con- 
stituted bodies not only from their different positions in 
space, but likewise and mainly from the differences exist- 
ing in their individual determinants, properties, acci- 


illa omnia multiplicari debeant, quae non multiplicentur, quae aliunde 
consequuntur esse locale, illa autem  proveniunt quam ex esse locah.” 


184 THE REAL PRESENCE 


dents, etc. There was probably never a forester who 
feared that if he felled one tree, the entire forest would 
come down as if by magic.}? 


Reapincs:— St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 75 sqq— 
Ipem, Contra Gent., IV, 62 sqq.— Billuart, De Eucharistia, diss. 
I, art. 5 sqq.—*Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 47.— Bellarmine, 
De Eucharistia, III, 18 sqq.—Lessius, De Perfect. Moribusque 
Divinis, XII, 16—*De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 5 sq., 8 sqq. 

Among modern authors the student may consult: Fr. X, 
Wildt, Erplanatio Mirabilium, quae Diviné Potentiä in Eu- 
charistiae Sacramento Operantur, Bonn 1868.— G. Reinhold, Die 
Lehre von der örtlichen Gegenwart Christi in der Eucharistie 
beim hl. Thomas von Aquin, Vienna 1893.— Oswald, Die dog- 
matische Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, Vol. I, 5th ed., § 9-10, 
Münster 1894.— Scheeben, Die Mysterien des Christentums, 3rd 
ed., $ 69 sqq., Freiburg 1912.—*Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische 
Theologie, Vol. IX, $ 538 sqq., Mayence 1901.— Scheeben-Atz- 
berger, Handbuch der kath. Dogmatik, Vol. IV, 2, $ 372, Freiburg 
'1901.— N. Gihr, Die hi. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd 
ed., $ 62 sqq., Freiburg 1902.— Hourcade, “ Autour du Probleme 
Eucharistique,” in the Bulletin de Literature Ecclésiastique, 1905, 
pp. 267 sqq.—D. Coghlan, De SS. Eucharistia, Dublin 1913.— 
J. M. Piccirelli, S. J., Disquisitio Dogmatica, Critica, Scholas- 
tica, Polemica .de Catholico Intellectu Dogmatis Transsubstan- 
tiationis, Naples 1912.— Jansen, S. J., art. “ Eucharistiques (Ac- 
cidents)” in the Dict. de Theol. Catholique-—Ed. Hugon, O. P., 
La Sainte Eucharistie, Paris 1916, Part IL—A. M. Lépicier, 
Tract. de SS. Eucharistia, Paris 1917, Vol. I—B. J. Otten, S. J., 
A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. II, pp. 320 sqq., St. 
Louis 1918.—On the multiplication of the Real Presence see — 
J. S. Vaughan, Thoughts For All Times, 23rd Am. ed., Spring- 
field, Mass., 1916, pp. 145 sqaq. 


12 Cfr. Gutberlet, Allgemeine Metaphysik, 4th ed., $ 30, Münster 1906, 


PART I] 


THE HOLY EUCHARIST AS A 
SACRAMENT 


That the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrament fol- 
lows from the fact that it is a visible sign of in- 
visible grace instituted by Jesus Christ. It has 
been so regarded through all the centuries of the 
Christian Church. 


1. The question as to the precise nature of this Sacra- 
ment is beset with many difficulties. 

The essence of the Holy Eucharist does not consist in 
the Consecration, nor in the Communion, since the 
former is a sacrificial action, while the latter is merely 
the reception of the Sacrament, not the Sacrament it- 
self.1 The question eventually reduces itself to this: 
Is the sacramentality of the Eucharist to be sought for 
in the Eucharistic species as such, or in the Body and 
Blood of Christ hidden beneath them? The majority 
of theologians respond in the words of Deharbe’s Cate- 
chism: “ The Holy Eucharist is the true Body and the 
true Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is really and 
substantially present under the appearances of bread and 
wine for the nourishment of our souls.” Hence the 
Sacrament consists not in the Eucharistic species as such, 
nor in the Body or Blood of Christ alone, but in the union 
of both in one moral whole. The species undoubtedly 


1Cfr. Catechismus Romanus, De Eucharistia, qu. 8. 


185 


186 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


belong to the essence of the Sacrament, since it is by 
means of them, and not by means of the invisible Body 
of Christ, that the Eucharist becomes the outward sign 
of grace.? Equally certain it is that the Body and 
Blood of Christ are of the essence of the Sacrament, 
because it is not the mere unsubstantial appearances that 
are given for the nourishment of souls, but Christ 
concealed beneath them.? Furthermore, it is only on ac- 
count of the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed 
Sacrament that we are allowed and in duty bound to 
adore it.* 

2. The definition we have quoted from Deharbe is, 
however, incomplete, as it makes no mention of the sacra- 
mental form. This can only consist in the words of Con- 
secration, and hence the Scotists are in error when they 
say that the words of Consecration do not enter into the 
intrinsic form of the Sacrament but merely cause it to 
exist.° Their theory can easily be disproved. It is only 
by means of the words of Consecration that the Eucha- 
ristic species become a visible sign of the Body and 
Blood of Christ and of the graces effected in holy Com- 
munion. Consequently, the words of Consecration, con- 
sidered as morally continuing their effect, constitute the 
sacramental form of the Holy Eucharist.® 


2 Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, 
Cap. 3% 

8 Cfr. John VI, 52 sqq. 

4V. supra, p. 141. 

5V. Pohle-Preuss, The 
ments, Vol. I., pp. 64 sq. 

6@Cfr. De Lugo, De Sacramentis 
in Genere, disp. 2, sect. 7, n. 136: 
“Nam corpus Christi ibi non est 
sensibile per se, sed per species et 
verba consecrationis; nec species 
solae significant sufhcienter sensi- 
biliter corpus Christi vel gratiam, 


« 


Sacra- 


sed oportet videre species panis, 
vy. g. et audire vel scire prolata 


_ esse verba consecrationis super illas 


species, ut aliquis veniat in cogni- 
tionem corporis Christi ibi contents 
et gratiae quam potest ille cibus 
causare: debent ergo verba intrare 
ut partiale constitutivum sacraments 
in ratione signs sensibiliter signt- 
ficantis gratiam.” For a refutation 
of the Scotistic objections cfr. De 
Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 1, sect. 


4-5. 


THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT _ 187 


3. To obtain an adequate principle of division for this 
part of our treatise, we will consider the Holy Eucha- 
rist in its three consecutive stages: in fieri, in esse, and 
in usw sive sumptione. In all stages there is a visible 
sign (matter and form), but this sign differs considerably 
in each. The (remote) matter of the Sacrament in fiert 
are the unconsecrated bread and wine; the form, the 
words of Consecration as pronounced here and now. 
The materia proxima in esse are the Eucharistic species 
of bread and wine in so far as they signify and contain 
the true Body and Blood of Christ, while the form con- 
sists in the morally enduring words of Consecration, as 
the phrase “ species consecratae” indicates. Of the Sac- 
rament in usu sive sumptione (Communion) the Eucha- 
ristic species constitute the remote, their consumption 
the proximate matter, while the form is lacking, since the 
accompanying words of the minister (“ Corpus Domim 
nostri Iesu Christi custodiat animam tuam,”’ etc.) are 
not essential. If we say that the consumption of the 
sacred species is the proximate matter, we do not em- 
ploy this term in a sacramental sense, because holy Com- 
munion is not a Sacrament in itself, but merely the recep- 
tion of an already existing (permanent) Sacrament. 

4. This gives us the basis for an adequate division of 
our subject-matter. Passing over the institution, which 
we discussed in the first part of this treatise in connec- 
tion with the Real Presence, the essential point is the 
outward sign, 7. e. matter and form. By matter (materia 
ex qua remota) we understand the so-called Eucharistic 
elements, namely, the bread and wine which are to be con- 
verted into the Body and Blood of Christ, and by form, 
the words of Consecration which effect this conversion. 
The “inward grace” must be identical with the effects 
of holy Communion, since it is only through Communion 


166° “THE EUCHARIST UAS: A SACRAMENT 


that the recipient becomes sanctified, whereas the Conse- 
cration (or Transubstantiation) has for its sole object to 
make the Author of grace present under the Eucharistic 
species. When we say that the Holy Eucharist is neces- 
sary for salvation, we have reference to Communion, not 
to the Consecration performed by the priest. 

In regard to the persons concerned, we distinguish be- 
tween the minister of the Eucharist, 7. e. the consecrator 
or dispenser, and its subject, 7. e. the recipient of holy 
Communion. 

The minister conficiens is the priest who performs the 
Consecration, the minister dispensans, he who distributes 
the Sacrament to the faithful. 


CHAPTER I 


MATTER AND FORM 


SECTION 1 


THE MATTER, OR THE EUCHARISTIC ELEMENTS 


The fact that there are two distinct Eucharistic 
elements, 2. e. bread and wine, no more interferes 
with the unity of this Sacrament than the differ- 
ent stages of ordination interfere with the unity 
of Holy Orders." 


Sacred Scripture represents the Holy Eucharist as a 
celestial banquet, at which both meat and drink are dis- 
pensed.? Besides, the separate species of bread and 
wine also symbolize the mystic separation of Christ’s 
Body and Blood, :. e. the slaughtering of the Eucharistic 
Lamb of sacrifice.? 


I. WHEATEN BREAD AS THE First ELEMENT. 
—The first element of the Sacrament of the Holy 


1Cfr. the dogmatic treatise on Eucharistia, disp. 2, sect. ı sqq. 


Holy Orders, Vol. XI of this series. 
2 Ctr. Join’ V1, 565) r- Cor. kX,. 17. 
8 This symbolism is explained by 

St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 

73, art. 2, and, with considerable 

detail, by Suarez, De Eucharistia, 

disp. 39, sect. 3, and De Lugo, De 


The student may also consult Gihr, 
Die Lehre von den hi. Sakramenten, 
Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 505 sqq., and 
F. Schmid in the Innsbruck Zeit- 
schrift für kath. Theologie, 1903, 
Ppp. 230 sqq. 


189 


190 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


Eucharist is wheaten bread. This is theolog- 
ically certain from the dogmatic Decretum pro 
Armenis of Pope Eugene IV, which says: “Ma- 
teria est pants triticeus et vinum de vite.”’* The 
Roman Missal says that “without wheaten bread 
there is no conversion of the elements into the 
Body and Blood of Christ.’ ° 


Since the bread required is that made of wheaten flour, 
not every kind of flour is allowed, such, e. g., as is ground 
from rye, oats, barley, Indian corn or maize, though these 
are all classified as grain (frumentum). On the other 
hand, the different varieties of wheat (spelt, amel-corn, 
etc.) are valid matter in so far as they can be proved 
botanically to be genuine wheat. 

The necessity of wheaten bread is deduced immediately 
from the words of institution: “ The Lord took bread.” 
The Greek text says: &Aaße rov dptov. Now in Scrip- 
tural usage, 4etos without any qualfying adjective, nearly 
always signifies wheaten bread.” No doubt, too, that 
Christ at the Last Supper adhered to the Jewish custom 
of using only wheaten bread in the Passover, and by the 
words “Do this for a commemoration of me,” com- 
manded its use for all succeeding time. 

This view is confirmed by an uninterrupted tradition, 
embodied in the writings of the Fathers and the constant 
practice of the Church. Clement of Alexandria and 
Origen, in comparing the Catholic Church to wheaten 
bread, as distinct from the inferior bread ‘ground 
from barley, to which they liken the Jewish Synagogue, 


4 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 698. é N 6 However, see R. Butin in the 
5De Defect., 3: “Si panis non Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. LIX 
sit triticeus ..., non conficitur sa- (1918), No. 2, pp. 113 saq. 


cramentum.” 


MATTER AND FORM 191 


plainly indicate that genuine wheaten bread was consid- 
ered the only valid element of the most sublime mystery 
of the Christian religion. St. Ireneus traces the use of 
wheaten bread in the Eucharist to an express command 
of our Lord and His Apostles. 


2. THE QUESTION REGARDING UNLEAVENED 
Breap.—Wheaten bread can be prepared in a 
twofold way: either with leaven or yeast, or with- 
out it. Bread baked with yeast is called leavened 
(fermentum, vos) ; bread made of wheaten flour 
and water without yeast, unleavened (asyma, 
alupov ) , 

After the Patriarch Michael Caerularius of 
Constantinople had sought to palliate the renewed 
rupture of the Greeks with Rome by means of 
the controversy concerning the use of unleavened 
bread in the Holy Eucharist (A. D. 1053), the 
two Churches, in the Decree of Union adopted 
at Florence, in 1439, came to the decision that 
the question was of no dogmatic importance, but 
that the Latin Rite was bound to use unleavened, 
while the Greek might continue to use leavened 
bread.” As the validity of leavened bread has 
never been questioned, we may confine ourselves 
to a defence of the Latin custom of using unleav- 
ened bread in the Holy Eucharist. 


7 Cfr. Conc. Flor.: * Difinimus 
. in azymo sive fermentato pane 
triticeo corpus Christi.veraciter con- 
fici sacerdotesque in altero ipsum 
Domini corpus conficere debere, 


unumquemque scil. iuxta suae ec- 
clesiae sive occidentalis sive orien- 
talis consueiudinem.’ (Denzinger- 
Bannwart, n. 692). 


192 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


a) According to the synoptic gospels,® the Last Supper 
was celebrated “on the first day of the azymes” (é 7 
mpwotn tov avpov), that is, at the beginning of the period 
of seven days during which the Jews partook exclusively 
of the so-called maszoth as bread.® Therefore we may 
rightly claim that the custom of the Western Church re- 
ceived its solemn sanction from Christ Himself. This 
was pointed out as early as 1054 by Pope Leo IX in his 
protest against Michael Caerularius.!® 

The schismatic Greeks object that, according to the 
Fourth Gospel,!! our Divine Saviour celebrated the Last 
Supper per anticipationem “before the festival day of 
the pasch.” This is refuted by Estius!? with the re- 
mark that no doubt He also by anticipation obeyed the 
legal prescription regarding unleavened bread, especially 
since the Jews were accustomed to do away with all the 
leaven which chanced to be in their dwellings on the day 
before the fourteenth of Nisan.** 

b) Tradition is neither very clear nor uniform on this 
subject. Without attempting to settle the ancient dis- 
pute whether or not in the first six or eight centuries the 
Latins also celebrated Mass with leavened bread,'* or 
whether they have observed the present custom ever since 


8 Matth. XXVI, 17; Mark XIV, 
12; Luke XXII, 7. 

Ber. Ex XIl, rsiisaa: 

10 See his letter in Migne, P. L., 
CXL 978, 

1 Ctr ohn X ULE a. 

12 Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 8, 
§ 8. 

13 Cfr. 1 Cor. V, 7.— For a har- 
monization of the synoptic Gospels 
with that of St. John on this point, 
see De Augustinis, De Re Sacra- 
mentaria, 2nd ed., Vol. I, p. 631, 
Rome 1889; Bellarmine, De Sacr. 
Euchar., 1V, 7-9; Chwolson, Das 


letzte Passahmahl Christi und der 
Tag seines Todes, St. Petersburg 
1892; J. Belser, Die Geschichte des 
Leidens und Sterbens, der Auferste- 


‘hung und Himmelfahrt des Herrn, 


pp. 306 sqq., Freiburg 1903; J. 
Schneid, Der Monatstag des Abend- 
mahles und Todes unseres Herrn 
Jesus Christus, Ratisbon 1905. 

14 Sirmond, Döllinger, and F. X. 
Kraus hold that they did; Mabillon, 
Probst, and others maintain that 
unleavened bread was used in the 
Western Church from the begin- 
ning. 


a 


" 


MATTER AND FORM 193 


the time of the Apostles, we merely call attention to the 
fact that in the Orient the Armenians and Maronites have 
used unleavened bread from time immemorial and that, 
according to Origen,'® the people of the East “ some- 
times ” (therefore not as a rule), made use of leavened 
bread in their liturgy. We may also ask how Justin 
Martyr !° could have regarded the unleavened bread of- 
fered by the lepers of the Old Testament as a figure of 
the Eucharist, if unleavened bread had not been regarded 
as valid matter for Consecration in his time? 

c) Besides, there is considerable force in the philosoph- 
ical argument that the fermenting process with yeast and 
other leaven does not affect the substance of the bread, 
but merely its quality.” Reasons of congruity can be 
urged in favor of either custom, though they are not, of 
course, decisive. The Greeks rightly maintain that leav- 
ened bread is a beautiful symbol of the Hypostatic Union, 
—the compenetration of Christ’s humanity with the 
Godhead,!8— as well as an attractive representation of 
the savour of this Heavenly Food. Nevertheless St. 
Thomas finds the Latin practice more appropriate, first, 
because of the example of Christ; secondly, because of 
the aptitude of unleavened bread to be regarded as a 
symbol of His pure Body, free from all corruption, and 
thirdly, because of St. Paul’s exhortation to keep the 
Pasch “not with the leaven !? of malice and wickedness, 
but with the unleavened bread 7° of sincerity and truth.” *! 


3. WINE OF GRAPES AS THE SECOND ELEMENT. 
—The second Eucharistic element required is 


15 In Matth., t. XII, n. 6. 18 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 
16 Dial. c. Tryph., 41. and ed., p. 227, St. Louis 1916. 
17 Cfr. Catechismus Romanus, De 19 Ev (Uun.- 

Eucharistia, qu. 14. 20 Ev Afüuoıs. 


21 N Cor. Vi 8: 


194 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


wine. “Wine” (vinum, oivos), without any quali- 
fying addition, has always meant, as it means to- 
day, wine of the grape (vinum de vite). Hence 
are excluded as invalid the juices extracted and 
prepared from other fruits (cider, perry, etc.), 
as well as all the so-called artificial wines, even 
if their chemical constitution should happen to be 
identical with the genuine juice of the grape. 
Origin and color are, however, indifferent, 
though some hold that our Lord Himself employed 
red wine. ‘The necessity of wine of grapes for 
the validity of the Holy Eucharist has never been 
authoritatively defined by the Church, but it is 
presupposed by her, e. g., in the decrees of the 
Fourth Lateran Council,” the Council of Flor- 
ence, ** and the Council of Trent.”* 

a) Though the words of institution contain 
no direct reference to wine, but merely speak of 
the “chalice” (calır, totnpwv), there can be no 
doubt that the chalice blessed by our ‘Lord at the 
Last Supper contained genuine wine. 


This can be deduced partly from the rite of the Pass- 
over, which required the head of the family to pass 
around the “cup of benediction” (calix benedictionis) 
containing wine of grapes, and partly from Christ’s own 


express declaration, Matth. XXVI, 29: “I will not‘ 


drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine (genimine 


22A. D. v215.. Caput. © Firmi- 23V. No. 1, supra. 
ter ”’ (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 24 Sess. XIII, cap. 4 (Denzinger- 
430). . Bannwart, n. 877). 


ON Te ee ne 


a Se ee 


et Ke 


ER 


Te 


u aS oe 


EEE eS ee eh a et a SE eae io, 


MATTER AND FORM 195 
 vitis), until that day when I shall drink it with you new 
in the kingdom of my Father.” 

There is no need of elaborating the argument from | 
Tradition, as the Catholic Church has always been at one 
in this matter with the Greeks. We need but peruse 
the utterances of the Fathers on the Real Presence and 
Transubstantiation, as cited in the first part of this 
treatise,2° to be convinced that both in the East and in the 
West wine of grapes was always considered necessary 
for the validity of the Blessed Sacrament. The Hydro- 
parastatae or Aquarians, who used water instead of wine, 
were regarded as heretics. Harnack’s contention ** that 
the ancient Church was indifferent as to the use of 
wine, and more concerned with the action of eating and 
drinking than with the elements, is absolutely unfounded.” 

b) An ancient ecclesiastical law ** prescribes that a 
little water should be added to the wine before the Con- 
secration. As the rubrics of the Mass forbid the addi- 
tion of water after the Consecration, this obviously has 
nothing to do with the validity of the Sacrament. The 
rigor with which this law is enforced is attributed by the 
Tridentine Council?® to three motives: (1) because 
Christ Himself probably added some water to the wine in 
celebrating the Last Supper; (2) because blood and 
water flowed from His side on the Cross; and (3) be- 
cause the mingling of water with wine fittingly symbol- 
izes the intimate union of the faithful with Christ. 

The ceremony of adding water to the wine before the 


25V. supra, pp. 55 sdq. 

26 Texte und ~Untersuchungen, 
new series, VII, 2 (1891), 115 sqq. 

27 Cfr. Funk, Die Abendmahlsele- 
mente bei Justin, Paderborn 1897; 
©. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der 
altkirchlichen Literatur, Vol. I, pp. 
238, Freiburg 1902; A. Scheiwiler, 


Die Elemente der Eucharistie in 
den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 
Mayence 1903. 

28 Cfr. Decretum pro Armenis: 
“Ante consecrationem aqua modi- 
cissima admisceri débet.”’ (Denzin- 
ger-Bannwart, n. 698). 

29 Sess. XXII, cap. 7. 


196 “THE FUCHARISTMASIA SACRAMENT 


Consecration derives its dogmatic interest solely from the 
fact that the Council of Trent enjoins the practice under 
pain of anathema.°° This decision may be traced to an 
ancient custom, common alike among Greeks, Romans, 
and Jews, of mixing water with the strong southern 
wines,**— which custom was most probably retained by 
our Divine Saviour at the Last Supper, since the paschal 
rite expressly prescribed that the wine should be mixed 
with one-third water. This also explains the fact that 
the ancient Fathers, notably St. Justin Martyr,?? St. 
Irenzus,?® and St. Cyprian,** speak of the “ calix mix- 
tus” (mornpiov kerpauevov), and that the third provincial 
Council of Carthage ordained that “in the Sacrament of 
the Body and Blood of the Lord nothing more be offered 
than what the Lord Himself handed down, 7. e. bread 
and wine mixed with water.” ®> The Council in Trullo, 
of 692, went so far as to depose certain Armenian bishops 
and priests who, following the example of the Mono- 
physites, employed wine without water at the Consecra- 
tion. 

c) The question has been asked: What becomes of 
the water added to the wine after the Consecration? 
This question, once debated with much ardor, is purely 
theoretical. St. Thomas mentions three different opin- 
ions that were held in his day on the subject.2¢ The 
first is, that “the water remains by itself when the wine 
34 Ep. 63 ad Caecil., n. 


(ed. Hartel, II, 710). 
85 Can. 22: “. .. ut in sacra- 


80 Sess. XII, can. 9: “St quis 
dixerit, aquam non miscendam esse 
vino in calice offerendo, eo quod sit 


13 sq. 


contra Christi institutionem, anathe- 
ma sit.’ (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 
956). 

81,Cfr.y Prov. IX, 72: 
vinum quod miscui vobis.” 

832 Apol., I, c. 65. 

83 Adv. Haer., V, 2, 3. 


“ Bibite 


mento corporis et sanguinis Domini 
nil amplius offeratur quam ipse 
Dominus tradidit, h. e. panis et 
vinum aqua mixtum.”? 

36 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 74, art. 
8. 


MATTER AND FORM 197 


is changed into blood.” The second, that “as the wine 
is changed into blood, so the water is changed into the 
water which flowed from Christ’s side.” The third, that 
“the water is changed into wine, and the wine into 
blood.” The last-mentioned opinion, which the Angelic 
Doctor considers “the more probable,’ was favored by 
Pope Innocent III (1198-1216).°” It is no longer ten- 
able in so far as it assumes that the water is chemically 
changed into wine,?® since modern physics teaches that 
the phenomena of osmose and diffusion are not a chemical 
but a physical process.*® But there is no objection to 
the theory propounded by Cardinal De Lugo “ that the 
mixture of wine and water in the chalice is immediately 
transformed into the Precious Blood of Christ. This 
theory is quite plausible in view of the fact that pure 
wine contains no less than ninety per cent. of water.*! 


87.92 DEL Decret;, tits. 41,5 Co) 0:2 “Ouch det: Physiky. Vol. L,uatai.ed:, 
“Verum inter opiniones praedictas pp. 149 sqq., 413 sqq., Freiburg 


illa probabilior iudicatur, quae as- 1905. 

serit aquam cum vino in sanguinem 40 De Eucharistia, disp. 4, sect. 

transmutari.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, 3-4. 

n. 416). 41 On the congruity of the two Eu- 
88 Cfr. Billuart, De Eucharistia, — charistic elements cfr. Oswald, Die 

dissert. 3, art. 4. hl. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, 


89, Cir, 1. Dressel, ıSı I, Lehr: 8112. 


SELL IONie 


THE SACRAMENTAL FORM, OR THE WORDS OF 
CONSECRATION 


There is no reason to assume that Christ at the Last 
Supper consecrated by an act of His will without the use © 
of words. But even if this could be proved, it would not 
alter the fact that His human ministers convert bread 
and wine into His Flesh and Blood by pronouncing the 
words of institution: “ This is my Body, ... this is 
my Blood.” ‘This fact settles the question as to the sacra- 
mental form of the Holy Eucharist. 

There remains, however, another question of consid- 
erable importance, viz.: whether the priest consecrates 
solely by virtue of the words of institution, or also by 
means of the so-called Epiklesis, which occurs in the 
Oriental liturgies shortly after the words of institution 
and expresses a petition to the Holy Spirit, “that the 
bread and wine may be converted into the Body and 
Blood of Christ.” 


Thesis I: Christ did not consecrate by a mere in- © 
articulate act of His omnipotent will, but by pronounc- | | 
ing the words, “ This is my Body, .... this is my 
Blood.” 


This proposition may be qualified as sententia . 
certa. 


Proof. The question at issue is not: Could 
198 


MATTER AND FORM 199 


Christ, had He so willed, have consecrated by a 
mere “blessing,” * without the use of words? but: 
Did He actually consecrate by pronouncing the 
words of institution ? | 


The Council of Trent defines: “. ... after [not by 
or through] the blessing of the bread and wine, He testi- 
fied in express and clear words that He gave them His 
own very Body and His own Blood; words which, re- 
corded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated 
by St. Paul... .”® Though the Council in this declara- 
tion does not clearly enunciate the proposition contained 
in our thesis, yet it is perfectly clear that the Fathers of 
Trent believed that Christ consecrated by pronouncing 
the words of institution. 


a) We know from the Gospel that, in institut- 
ing the Blessed Sacrament, our Divine Lord em- 
ployed the words, “This is my Body, .... this 
is my Blood.” In adding the command, “Do 
this for a commemoration of me,” He plainly 
wished to say: Do as you have seen and heard 
me do. Consequently, He Himself consecrated 
by pronouncing the words, “This is my Body, 

. . this is my Blood.” 

If the words of institution were purely a declaration that 


the conversion had taken place in the benediction, unan- 
nounced and unexpressed, the Apostles and their succes- 


1 Benedixit, ebdoynoas. 

2Sess. XIII, cap. 1: “Post 
panis vinique benedictionem se suum 
ipsius corpus illis praebere ac suum 
Sanguinem disertis ac perspicuis_ver- 


bis testatus est, quae verba-a sanctis 
Evangelistis commemorata et a divo 
Paulo repetita. ...” (Denzinger- 
Bannwart, n. 874). 


200 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


sors would, according to Christ’s example and man- 
date, have been obliged to consecrate in this mute man- 
ner also, a consequence which is inadmissible (v. Thesis 
TTY: 

b) Whatever may be thought of the cogency of the 
above interpretation, there can be no doubt that it was 
defended by some of the early Fathers and ecclesiastical 
writers. Thus Tertullian says: “Christ converted the 
bread which He had taken and distributed to His dis- 
ciples, into His own Body by saying: ‘This is my 
Body.’”? Similarly the pseudo-Ambrose, whose writ- 
ings are probably a transcript of sermons delivered by 
St. Ambrose in the Cathedral of Milan. “ The speech 
of: Christ, he says, “effected ‘this Sacrament.” + St. 
Chrysostom writes: “As the words which God [Christ] 
pronounced are the same as those which the priest utters 
to-day, so, too, the sacrifice is exactly the same.” ° 

The Scholastic view of the matter is expressed thus 
by Suarez: “ Christ consecrated by pronouncing the 
words just quoted, as they are reported by the Evangel- 
ists. This in my opinion is so certain that it would be 
temerarious to defend the contrary; it is the common 
opinion of theologians, including St. Thomas and Peter 
Lombard.” * 

Pope Innocent III, before his elevation to the pontih- 

3 Contra. Marcionem, IV, 40: sacramentum, iam non suis sermoni- 
“ Acceptum panem et distributum bus utitur sacerdos, sed utitur ser- 
discipuhs [Christus] corpus suum  monibus Christi. Ergo sermo Christi 
fecit ‘hoc est corpus meum’ di- hoc confit sacramentum.”” 
cendo.” 5Hom. in 2 Tim., 2 sub finem. 

4De Sacram., IV, 4 (Migne, Other Patristic texts under Thesis 
P. L., XVI, 440): ‘ Quomodo pot- II, infra. 
est qui panis est, corpus esse 6 De Eucharistia, disp. 58, sect. I, 
Christi? Consecratione. Consecra- n. 4: “Dicendum est Christum 
tione autem quibus verbis est, cuius consecrasse praedictis verbis semel 


sermonibus? Domini Iesu. ...  prolatis, prout ab Evangelistis refe- 
Ubi venitur, ut conficiatur venerabile runtur. Haec ita certa est meo iu- 


MATTER AND FORM 201 


cate, held the opinion which sn in common with 
most later theologians, branded as “‘ temerarious,” vi2.: 
that Christ consecrated without words by means of a 
-mere “ benediction.”” Not many theologians, however, 
followed him in this view, among the few being Am- 
brosius Catharinus,® Cheffontaines,® and L. A. Hoppe.!° 
By far the greater number preferred to ‚stand by the 
testimony of the Fathers. Restricted to the Divine 
Author of the Blessed Sacrament the view of Innocent 
III ** can at most be said to be temerarious. Ambrosius 
Catharinus and Cheffontaines went farther. They main- 
tained that in the Mass the Consecration is not effected 
by the words of institution, which are merely declara- 
tory, but through the instrumentality of other prayers. 
This view, though a logical deduction from the one previ- 
ously quoted, is untenable, as we shall show in our next 
thesis. 


Thesis II: By the articulate utterance, on the part 
of the priest, of the words of institution: “ This is my 
Body, ... this is my Blood,” Christ becomes imme- 
diately present on the altar. 


This proposition is fidei proxima. 


Proof. 


dicio, ut contraria non possit absque 
temeritate defendi; est communis 
theologorum cum D. Thoma (S. 
Mie Ol 3a, aus 785. art, Tet 
Magistro.” 

De WS Altarıs. Myst., IV, 6: 
“Sane dict potest quod Christus di- 
vind virtute confecit et postea for- 
mam expressit, sub qua posteri 
benedicerent; ipse namque per se 
propria virtute benedixit, nos autem 
ex illa virtute, quam indidit ver- 
bis.” - 


Passing for the present over the ques- 


8 Quibus Verbis Christus Eucha- 
ristiae Sacramentum  Confecerit, 
1552. 

9Varü Tract., I, t sqq., 1586. 

10 Die Epiklesis der griechischen 
und orientalischen Liturgie, Schaff- 
hausen 1864. 

11 This view was also defended 
by Huguccio (d. 1210), Praeposi- 
tinus (about 1200), Odo of Cambray 
(d. 1113), Stephen of Autun (d. 
1139) et al. 


202 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


tion whether or not the words of institution con- 
stitute the sole form of the Sacrament,” we have 
here merely to prove that the words “This is my 
Body, . . . this is my Blood,” are truly words 
of Consecration, and therefore belong to the sac- 
ramental form of the Eucharist. 


The dogmatic teaching of the Church on this head may 
be deduced from the following declaration of the Coun- 
cil-of Trent: “ This faith has ever been in the Church | 
of God, that immediately after the Consecration the 
veritable Body of our Lord and His veritable Blood, 
together with His soul and Divinity, are under the species 
of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species 
of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by 
the force of the words.” The phrase “by the force 
of the words” (ex vi verborum) plainly points to a two- 
fold group of words,—the one referring to “the Body 
under the species of bread,’ the other, to “the Blood 
under the species of wine.” Both groups are embodied 
in the words of institution: “ This is my Body, ... 
this is my Blood.” Consequently, it is the teaching of 
the Tridentine Council that the words of institution con- _ 
stitute the form of Consecration and that they are at 
least the partial form of the Sacrament. 

The schismatic Greek Church refuses to accept this 
teaching. It holds that the priest does not consecrate by 
virtue of the words of institution, but by means of the © 


12V. Thesis III, infra. 

13 Sess. XIII, cap. 3: “ Semper 
haec fides in Ecclesia Dei fuit, sta- 
tim post consecrationem verum 
Domini nostri corpus verumque eins 
sanguinem sub panis et vini specie 


una cum ipsius anima et divinitate 


existere; sed corpus quidem sub spe- 


cie panis et sanguinem sub vini specie — 


ex vi verborum.” (Denzinger-Bann- 


wart, n. 876). 


\ 


MATTER AND FORM 203 


Epiklesis. In taking this attitude the Greeks not only 
contradict the Council of Trent, but likewise the dogmatic 
Decretum pro Armenis of Eugene IV, promulgated at 
the Council of Florence, which says: “ The form of this 
Sacrament are the words of the Saviour, by means of 
which He effects this Sacrament; for the priest, speaking 
in the person of Christ, effects this Sacrament.” 14 This 
was the common doctrine of both Churches until Peter 
Mogilas in his famous “ Confessio Fidei Orthodoxa” 
(A. D. 1642),1° declared that the words of institution 
possess no intrinsic consecratory force. Mogilas was fol- 
lowed, in 1672, by the Council of Jerusalem and, ulti- 
mately, by the entire schismatic Church. 

The late Dr. H. Schell tried to reconcile the teaching 
of the schismatic Greeks with that of the Latin Church 
by arguing that the priest who says Mass according to the 
Roman rite consecrates by virtue of the words of insti- 


___ tution, while the priest who offers up the Holy Sacrifice 


according to the Greek rite consecrates by virtue of the 
Epiklesis, except among the Uniates, where the intention 
of consecrating by virtue of the words of Christ is. pre- 
scribed.1® However, this view is untenable. 


a) For the argument from Holy Scripture we 
refer the reader to Thesis I, supra. 

The teaching of Tradition may be gathered 
_ from the writings of the Fathers and the practice 


14 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 608: 

“ Forma huius sacramenti sunt verba 

Salvatoris, quibus hoc conficit sa- 

_craménium; sacerdos enim in per- 

sona Christi loquens hoc conficit sa- 
cramentum.” 

15 Qu. 107. Cfr, Kimmel, Monum. 


Fidei Eccles. Orient., I, p. 180, 
Jena 1850; Michalcescu, Die Be- 
kenntnisse und wichtigsten Glau- 
benszeugnisse der griechisch-orient. 
Kirche, p. 72, Leipzig 1904. 

16 Schell, Kath. Dogmatik, 
III, 2, pp. 539 sqq. 


Vol. 


204 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


of the Church. As we are arguing against the 
Greek schismatics, we shall confine ourselves to 
the Greek Fathers and liturgies. 


a) The Greeks can be shown the error of their present 
teaching from their own writings. They themselves for- 
merly placed the form of the Blessed Sacrament in the 
words of institution. St. Justin Martyr (A. D. 150) 
says: “We take this, not as common bread and com- 
mon drink, but as Jesus Christ, our Saviour, made flesh 
through the Divine Logos [in the sense of ° Overshad- 
ower of the virgin’] had flesh and blood for the 
sake of our redemption, thus we have been instructed 
that the meat blessed by the word of prayer coming from 
Him (8 edyns Adyov Tov map’ avtov), by which our flesh 
and blood are nourished through conversion, is the Flesh 
and Blood of that same Incarnate Jesus. For the Apos- 
tles have handed it down in their memoirs, which are 
called Gospels, that they were instructed as follows: 
That Christ took bread, gave thanks, and said: ‘Do this 
for a commemoration of me, this is my Body’; and that 
in a similar manner He took the cup, gave thanks, and 
said: ‘This is my Blood,’ giving them all to partake 
thereor ay 
- St. Ireneus of Lyons (born about 140) speaks of an 
“invocation of God” over the bread,’* but he identifies 
this “ Epiklesis” with the “ word of God,” saying that 
“the chalice and the bread receive the word of God.” *® 
The only “ word of God ” occurring in the Gospel in con- 
nection with the institution of the Eucharist is that 

17 Apol., I, 66 (Migne, P. G., VI, 19 Op. cit., V, 2, 3: Emiöexerau 
426). Tov Aöyov TOU Qeov. 


18 Adv. Haer., IV, 18, 5: rm 
erikAnow Tov Oeov. 


MATTER AND FORM 205 


pronounced by Christ, whereas the Epiklesis of the 
Greek Church is a purely ecclesiastical institution. 

St. Gregory of Nyssa teaches: “ This bread, as the 
Apostle says, is sanctified by the word of God and the 
prayer, converting itself into the Body of the Logos not 
by eating and drinking, but passing in one moment into 
the Body of the Logos, as it was spoken by the Logos 
Himself: ‘This is my Body.’ ” 2° 

A weighty witness is St. Chrysostom, in whose liturgy 
the Epiklesis plays an important role. He says: “It is 
no [mere] man who causes the [bread and wine] to be 
changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ 
Himself, who was crucified for us. Taking the part of 
Christ, the priest stands there, pronouncing those words; 
but it is the power and grace of God. ‘This is my 
Body,’ he declares. This word converts that which lies 
before him (rotro 7d prua petappvOuile. rd. mpoxetpeva). 
And as the command, ‘ Increase and multiply and fill the 
earth’ was uttered but once, communicating permanent 
fertility to the human race, so, too, this word [of Christ], 
spoken but once, causes the perfect victim [to be present] 
upon ali the altars of the churches from thenceforth to 
the present, and until the last day.” ?? 

St. John Damascene writes: “ As God by the exclama- 
tion ‘ Let there be light!’ created the light, so He effects 
this mystery by the words, ‘ This is my Body.’ ” 22 
‚ ß) The Greek Cardinal Bessarion,?* at the Council of 
Florence (1439), called the attention of his fellow-coun- 
trymen to the fact that in the ancient liturgies of SS. 


200r. Catech., c. 37 (Migne, tic texts are differently explained by 


PSG. XLV, 04). Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in 
21Hom. de Prod. Iudae, I, n. 6 the First Six Centuries of the 
(Migne, P. G., LIX, 380). Church, pp. 115 sqq., St. Louis 1913. 
22De Fide Orth., IV, 13 (Migne, 23 Bibl. Pair, Vol. XXVI, p. 


P. G., XCIV, 1147). These Patris- 795. 


Pd 


206. THE EUCHARIST: AS A SACRAMENT 


Basil and Chrysostom supreme adoration and homage 
are given to the Holy Eucharist as soon as the words of 
institution have been pronounced, whence it follows that 
the Consecration is effected by those words. By way of 
example we will cite the Ethiopian liturgy. 

CELEBRANT (with outstretched hands): “And in that night 
in which He was betrayed, He took the bread, ... gave it to 
His disciples, saying: ‘Eat ye all thereof, this bread is my 
Body, which was broken for you unto the forgiveness of sins. 
Amen.” 

Tue Prope (thrice): “Amen. We believe and are sure of 
it. We praise Thee, O Lord, our God, this is truly, we believe 
it, Thy Body.” 

CELEBRANT: “In a similar manner He took the chalice... 
and said to them: ‘Take and drink ye all of it, this is the 
chalice of my Blood, which is shed for you unto the salvation 
of many. Amen.” 

Tur Peopte: “Amen. It is truly Thy Blood, we believe.’ 24 

Then follows the famous Epiklesis, which runs as 
follows: 

“We beseech Thee, O Lord, and we pray, that Thou send 
down the Holy Spirit and His power upon this bread and this 
chalice, and convert them into the Body and Blood of our Lord 
and Saviour Jesus Christ, from eternity to eternity. Amen.” 


b) It remains to discuss the intention of the 
consecrating priest and to determine exactly in 
what words the form of Consecration consists. 

a) How can the mere recitation of the words of in- 
stitution, taken from the narrative of the Last Supper, 
possess consecratory force? If the celebrant of the 
Mass were to say: “ Let this be my Body,” the intention 


to consecrate would be clearly enunciated. It is for this 
reason that the Greeks insist on the use of a deprecative 


24 Apud Renaudot, Lit. Orient., Volal: p.i517s 


MATTER AND FORM 207 


formula, like the one contained in the Epiklesis. There 
can be no question that, in order to convert bread and 
wine into the Body. and Blood of Christ, the priest must 
have the intention to consecrate. There would be no 
Consecration if, in repeating the words of institution, 
he merely intended to relate an historical event. He 
must pronounce them, therefore, with the practical pur- 
pose of effecting the conversion ; nor is it indifferent which 
words he employs. The effect will depend on his em- 
ploying those words which Christ has instituted as the 
sacramental form, and which He Himself employed in 
consecrating, 7. e. the words of institution. Hence if 
the priest, in celebrating Mass, says: “ This is my 
Body,” he speaks and acts not in his own name and per- 
son, but “in the Person of Christ,” as His minister, and 
as an instrument of the Divine Omnipotence.?® 

Scotus 7° demands for the validity of the Consecration 
the recitation of the words “ Qui pridie quam pateretur,” 
which precede the formula of Consecration in the Canon. 
He says, if these words were omitted, it would not be ap- 
parent whether the priest were speaking in his own name 
or in that of Christ. We cannot share this view. For, 
in the first place, the words in question are purely his- 
torical and narrative, and, secondly, according to the gen- 
eral principles regarding the intention of the minister (as 
explained in a previous volume of this series),?” the 
validity of the entire Eucharistic act in its last analysis 
depends on the intention of the priest to consecrate with 
the words of Christ,— which intention might be present 
even if the words demanded by Scotus were omit- 
ted"? 


25 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra- 27 Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, 
ments, Vol. I, pp. 146 sqq. Vol. I, pp. 175 saqq. 
26 Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 8, 28 Cfr. St. “ Thomas,  Sunma 


qu. 8. \ Theol 3a% 40.78, cake) 7. 30.4, 


208 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


What if a schismatic priest would say Mass with the 
express intention of consecrating not by the divine words 
of institution, but by the Epiklesis? If this were gener- 
ally the case among the schismatic Greeks, should we not 
be forced to the conclusion that, since the seventeenth cen- 
tury at least, when the Greek Church began officially to 
connect. the Consecration with the Epiklesis, they no 
longer say Mass validly? 

If the minister of a Sacrament performs the prescribed 
rite conscientiously and with the proper intention, the Sac- 
rament is validly administered and will produce its effects 
regardless of any erroneous notions the minister may 
harbor concerning the essential or non-essential character 
of this or that part of the form. It may happen among 
us that a learned and faithful priest is in doubt as to what 
is essential in the matter or form of a Sacrament. 
Nevertheless, he administers the Sacrament validly if he 
has the right intention and conscientiously performs 
the prescribed rite from beginning to end. Though 
the Greeks may in the best of faith go on erroneously 
maintaining that they consecrate exclusively by the 
Epiklesis, nevertheless, as in the case of the Latins, they 
actually consecrate by means of the words of institution 
contained in their liturgies, provided, of course, that they 
really intend to celebrate Mass, of which as a rule there 
can be no reasonable doubt. Only in the imaginary sup- 
position that a schismatic priest were so filled with hatred 
against Rome that he would rather not consecrate at all 
than consecrate by means of the words of institution, 
should we be justified in concluding that there was a 
lack of genuine intention and that, consequently, the 
Mass was invalid.” 


293 On the effect of contrary intentions see De Lugo, De Sacra- 
mentis in Genere, disp. 8, sect. 8. 


MATTER AND FORM 209 


8) Which particular words are essential in the form 
of Consecration? All theologians agree that “ Hoc est 
corpus meum,— hic est sanguis meus” are undoubtedly 
essential. The majority further hold that these words 
are sufficient to insure the validity of the double Conse- 
cration, though to omit the other words prescribed by 
the Church, especially in the consecration of the chalice, 
would be a grievous sin. The principle on which this 
opinion is based may be stated as follows: That, and 
that only, belongs to the essence of the sacramental form, 
which precisely designates the effect of the Sacrament. 
Now, the words, “ This is my Body, this is my Blood,” 
effect the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ 
under the appearances of bread and wine. Therefore, 
these words effect the presence and constitute the essence 
of the sacramental form of the Eucharist. 

With regard to the consecration of the bread this is 
quite clear, as the Roman Canon of the Mass, unlike the 
Greek, employs no other words besides “ This is my 
Body.” The case is somewhat different with regard to 
the consecration of the, wine. St. Thomas! "says: 
“Some have maintained that the words ‘ This is the 
chalice of my Blood’ alone belong to the substance of 
the form, but not those words which follow. Now this 
seems incorrect, because the words which follow them 
are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ’s 
Blood; consequently they belong to the integrity of the 
expression. And on this account others-say more ac- 
curately that all the words which follow are of the sub- 
stance of the form, down to the words, ‘ As often as ye 
shall do this.’ .. .’3°. Some of the later Thomists at- 

30 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 78, art. quod dicitur: ‘ Hic est calix sangui- 


3: “Quidam dixerunt quod de sub- nis mei, non autem ea quae se- 
stantia formae huius est hoc solum quuntur. Sed hoc videtur incon- 


DIOR SEELE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


tempt to reconcile their master’s opinion with the com- 
mon teaching, by drawing a distinction between essentia 
formae and substantia formae, and referring the above- 
quoted passage only to the “ substance,” 7. e. the integ- 
rity of the form, not to its “essence.” ** The older 
Thomists took substantia formae and essentia formae as 
synonymous terms and held that without the words in- 
sisted on by Aquinas there is probably no conversion of 
the wine. This latter view is utterly untenable, first, 
because of the parity existing between the consecration 
of the bread and that of the wine, the first sentence, 
“Hoc est corpus meum,” being absolutely parallel to the 
second, “ Hic est sanguis meus,” and, secondly, for the 
reason that the words on which St. Thomas insists do 
not occur in the Greek liturgy.*? | 


Thesis III: The words of institution contain the 
only and wholly adequate form of the Eucharist, and 
consequently the Epiklesis possesses no consecratory 
value, nay it does not even constitute a part of the form 


of the Sacrament. 


This thesis may be technically qualified as sen- 


tentia certa. 
Proof. In the foregoing thesis we showed 
that the words of institution belong to the sacra- 


mental form of the Eucharist. It remains to’ 


veniens, quia ea quae sequuntur sunt 31 Thus Billuart, De Eucharistia, 
quaedam determinationes praedicati, diss. 5 art. 3,8 ,2- 

i. e. sanguinis Christi; unde per- 32 Cfr. Suarez, De Euchari- 
tinent ad integritatem eiusdem locu- stia, disp. 60, sect. 1; Bil- 


tionis. Et propter hoc sunt alii, qui luart’s interpretation has found a 
melius dicunt quod omnia sequentia modern defender in De Augustinis, 
sunt de substantia formae usque ad De Re Sacrament., Vol. I, 2nd ed., 
hoc quod postea sequitur: ‘Haec pp. 655 sqq- 

quotiescungue feceritis,’ etc.” 


ELSE Fr 


Dr 


a 
> 
i 


= 


SSE 


ie! a 


oe eee 


MATTER AND FORM 211 


prove that they constitute the only and wholly 
adequate form, and that the Epiklesis is therefore 
not essential. x 


The contention that the words of the Epiklesis have a 
joint essential value and constitute a part of the form of 
the Eucharist, was first made by Archbishop Kabasilas 
of Thessalonica (about 1354). It was repeated by the 
bitterly anti-Roman controversialist Marcus Eugenicus 
of Ephesus (d. about 1447), by Samonas of Gaza, and 
other Greek writers. A few Latin theologians, notably 
Touttée,** Renaudot,’* and Lebrun ** adopted this view. 
It cannot be condemned as heretical, since it allows to 
the words of institution their essential, though only a par- 
tial consecratory value; but it is intrinsically improbable. 
The act of Consecration cannot remain, as it were, in a 
state of suspense, but is completed in an instant of time, 
and hence there arises the dilemma: Either the words 
of institution alone, and, therefore, not the Epiklesis, 
are productive of the conversion, or the words of the 
Epiklesis alone have such power, and not the words of 
institution. At the Council of Florence (1439) the 
Catholic Church made it plain that the words of institu- 
tion alone constitute the sacramental form of the Eucha- 
rist. In 1822, Pope Pius VII declared in a letter to the 
Antiochene Patriarch of the Melchites, that “in virtue 
of obedience” no one was permitted to defend the schis- 
matic teaching on this subject, either publicly or in pri- 
vate,°® 


33 A. Touttee, O. S. B., Opera S. 36% .. formam, qua _ vivificum 
Cyrilli Hierosol., Praef., diss. 3, ch.  sacramentum perficiiur, non in solis 
22, Iesu Christi verbis consistere.” 

34 Lit. Orient., Vol. I, pp. 96 (Laemmer, Decreta Conc. Ruthenor. 
sqq., 238 sqq., Paris 1716. Zamosciensis, p. 56, Freiburg 


35 Explication de la Messe, diss. 1865). 
Io, art. 17, Paris 1726. iF 


212: “THE RUCHARISTAS A SACRAMENT 


a) We have already adverted to the fact that the 
whole question came up for discussion in the Council of 
Florence, where the Greeks were invited to explain their 
position on the Epiklesis. Eugene IV urged them to come 
to an agreement with the Latins and to drop the 
contention that the Epiklesis possesses consecratory force. 
The Council originally intended to define it as of 
faith that the Consecration is effected solely by the 
words of Christ: “ This is my Body, this is my Blood.” 
But when the Greeks pleaded that they had always be- 
lieved in the consecratory power of the words of institu- 
tion, and that a dogmatic decision would reflect upon 
their whole ecclesiastical past,” the Council desisted 
from its purpose and declared itself satisfied with the 
oral declaration of Cardinal Bessarion,?® that the Greeks 
follow the universal teaching of the Fathers, especially 
of “ Blessed John Chrysostom, familiarly known to us,” 
according to whom “the divine words of our Redeemer 
contain the full power of Transubstantiation.” ®° 

In view of these facts it will not do to attribute the 
efforts made by Eugene IV and the Council of Florence 
to a desire “to bring the Greek rite into as close a con- 
formity as possible to the Latin rite without detriment to 
the dogmatic possibility of consecrating by means of the 
Epiklesis.” * The Council of Florence, which in the 
question of unleavened bread and other matters had 


87 Cfr. Hardouin, Collect. Concil., 


Vol. IX, p. 981. 

88 This declaration is recorded in 
the minutes of the Council for July 
5, 1439. 

39 “ Quoniam ab omnibus sanctis 
doctoribus Ecclesiae, prasertim ab il- 
lo B. Ioanne Chrysostomo, qui nobis 
notissimus est, audimus verba 
Dominica esse illa quae mutant et 
transsubstantiant panem et vinum 


in corpus verum Christi et sangui- 
nem, et quod illa verba divina Salva- 
toris omnem virtutem transsubstan- 
tiationis habent, nos ipsum sanctis- 
simum doctorem et illius sententiam 
sequimur de necessitate.” (Migne, 
PAG.) CEXT “ont On thes teach= 
ing of St. Chrysostom v. supra, p. 
205. 

40 H. Schell, Kath. Dogmatik, Vol. 
III, 1, p. 547. 


Ri 


MATTER AND FORM 2318 


shown itself so considerate in meeting the demands of 
the Greek Church, based its decision in regard to the 
Epiklesis on the firm conviction that the words of insti- 
tution alone effect the Consecration, and consequently 
constitute the sole form of the Eucharist.‘ 


b) The dogmatic aspects of the Epiklesis, its 
peculiar position in the Oriental rite, and its ven- 
erable antiquity, have given rise to a vast litera- 
ture, which has not, however, led to a definitive 
conclusion. | 


The Epiklesis would offer no theological difficulties if 
it preceded instead of following the words of institution 
in the Canon of the Mass. In that case, like the analo- 
gous invocation of the Roman Missal, it would clearly be 
nothing but the expression, in the form of a prayer, of 
the priest’s intention of converting the bread and wine 
into the Body and Blood of Christ. In matter of fact, 
however, the Epiklesis in all the Oriental liturgies,— 
with the exception of the Syriac liturgy of Addai and 
Mari, which entirely omits it,— invariably follows the 
words of institution.*? This gives rise to the question 
how the Epiklesis may be made to harmonize with the 
words of Christ, which alone possess consecratory power. 
Two explanations have been suggested. 

a) The first considers the Epiklesis to be a mere 
declaration of the fact that the conversion has taken 
place, or that in the conversion an essential part is to be 

41 On the attitude of the Ar- Franzelin, De SS. Eucharistia, thes. 
menians see Hefele, Concilienge- 7. i 
schichte, Vol. II, 2nd ed., p. 656 42 Of the occidental liturgies only 
sqq., Freiburg 1890. -On the whole the so-called Mozarabic has the Epi- 


subject-matter of this section, cfr. klesis following the words of in- 
- stitution. 


214 THE EUCHARTISTTASITA SAGRAMENT 


attributed to the Holy Spirit as co-Consecrator, just as 
in the mystery of the Incarnation.* According to 
this theory the Epiklesis possesses only a declarative 
value, dramatically recalling an historic event to the 
imagination, but nevertheless refers to the Consecration 
as such.** The priest, at the moment of the Consecra- 
tion, cannot actually express all the thoughts that move 
the heart of the Church. Therefore, lest the important 
part of the Holy Ghost in the act of the Consecration be 
passed over in silence, he goes back in imagination to 
the precious moment and speaks and acts as if the Con- 
secration were just about to occur. Thus in the Epikle- 
sis liturgical art conspires with psychology to draw out, 
as it were, the brief but pregnant moment of the Con- 
secration into a series of vivid dramatic acts. The 
Epiklesis, therefore, bears the same relation to the Con- 
secration as the periphery of a circle to its centre.® A 
similar purely retrospective transfer is met with in other 
portions of the liturgy, as in the Mass for the dead, 
when the Church prays for the departed as if they 
were still capable of being rescued from the gates of 
heil,’ 

ß) A second explanation refers the Epiklesis, not to 
the enacted Consecration, but to the approaching Com- 
munion, inasmuch as the latter, being the means of unit- 
ing us more closely in the organized body of the Church, 
makes us members of the mystical Christ. The invoca- 


43 On the analogy between the “ Oportet haec aliaque huiusmodi 


Eucharist and the Incarnation see 
Lessius, De Perfect. Moribusque Di- 
vinis, XI, 16, 120. 

44 This is denied by Bellarmine, 
Suarez, De Lugo, Simar, and oth- 
ers. 

45 Cfr. Card. Bessarion’s declara- 
tion (Migne, P. G., CLXI, 517): 


non tamquam in tempore, in quo di- 
cuntur, sed tamquam in tempore, pro 
quo dicuntur, ita intelligere, ac st 
tempus illud maneret minimeque de- 
flueret.”” 

46 Cfr. Gutberlet, in Heinrich- 
Gutberlet’s Dogmatische Theologie, 
Vol. 2X \p.0735. 


MATTER AND FORM 215 
tion of the Holy Spirit has for its object, not to produce 
the sacramental Christ by Transubstantiation, but by a 
sort of spiritual transformation wrought in holy Com- 
munion, to fructify the Body and Blood of Christ for 
the benefit of priest and people, as we read in the Roman 
Canon of the Mass: “ Ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat 
dilectissimi Filü tui Domini nostri Iesu Christi.” ** It 
was in this purely mystical manner that the Greeks them- 
selves explained the meaning of the Epiklesis at the 
Council of Florence.** 

Since, however, much more is contained in the plain 
words of the Epiklesis than this mysticism, it is desirable 
to combine both explanations into one. 

Critical Appreciation of the Two Theories.— Both 
liturgically and in point of time the Epiklesis stands as 
a significant connecting link between the Consecration 
and Communion. In its relation to the Consecration, 
it is an attempt to bring time to a standstill, as 
it were, to fix the precious moment in the imagination, 
and to emphasize the part taken by the Holy Spirit as 
co-Consecrator. In its relation to Communion, it is a 
petition to the Holy Ghost to obtain the realization of 
the true presence of the Body and Blood of Christ by 
their fruitful effects in the souls of priest and people. 
Here we have the mystical, there the real Christ ;— 
these are the two underlying ideas of the Epiklesis, 


47 For a number of similar pas- 
sages in ancient liturgies see Hein- 
rich-Gutberlet, op. cit., pp. 729 SqQ- 

48 Asked for their opinion, they 
declared in the twenty-fifth session: 
“ Fateri nos diximus, per haec verba 
[scil. hoc est corpus meum] trans- 
substantiari sacrum panem et heri 
corpus Christi; sed -postea, quem- 
admodum et ipsi [Latini] dicitis: 
‘Iube haec perferrt. per menus 


sancti angel tut in sublime altare 
tuum’ (this prayer, however, is 
hardly an Epiklesis), ita nos quoque 
oramus dicentes: ‘ut Spiritus S. de- 
scendat super nos et efhciat in nobis 
panem hunc pretiosum corpus Christi 
tui, et quod in calice isto est, pre- 
tiosum sanguinem Christi tur trans- 
mutetque ipsa Spiritu S. suo, ut fiant 
communicantibus in  purgationem 
animae,”’ etc. 


216 > “THE EUCHARIST AS AXSACRAMENT 


which may therefore be defined as “the ritual develop- 
ment of the content of the Holy Eucharist, both in re- 
spect of faith and grace, with particular reference to the 
Holy Spirit, for the purpose of glorifying Him as co- 
Consecrator and Dispenser of all graces, and for the 
spiritual benefit of priest and people.” *° 


Reapincs: — The general treatises mentioned supra, pp. 7 sq.— 
*V, Thalhofer, Handbuch der kath. Liturgik, 2nd revised and 
enlarged edition by L. Eisenhofer, 2 vols., Freiburg 1912.— 
Hilarius a Sexten, O. Cap., Tractatus Pastoralis de Sacra- 
mentis, Mayence 1895.—*P. Gasparri, Tractatus Canonicus de 
SS. Eucharistia, Paris 1897.—J. E. Pruner, Lehrbuch der 
Pastoraltheologie, Vol. I, and ed., Paderborn 1904.— G. Rauschen, 
Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, 
St. Louis 1913.—A. Devine, C. P., The Sacraments Explained, 
pp. 175 sqq., 3rd ed., London 1905. 

Giese, Erörterung der Streitfrage über den Gebrauch der 
Azymen, Münster 1852.— Funk, “Die Abendmahlslehre bei 
Justin,’ in Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersu- 
chungen, Vol. I, pp. 278 sqq., Paderborn 1897.—*A. Scheiwiler, 
Die Elemente der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 
Mayence 1903.—B. J. Otten, A Manual of the History of Dog- 
mas, Vol. II, St. Louis 1918, pp. 327 sqq. 

I. A. Orsi, Dissertatio de Invocatione S. Spiritus in Liturgüs 
Graecis et Orientalibus, Milan 1731—C. Henke, Die kath. Lehre 
über die Konsekrationsworte, Treves 1850.—*Hoppe Die Epiklesis 
der griechischen und orientalischen Liturgie, Schaffhausen 1864. 
— J. Th. Franz, Der eucharistische Konsekrationsmoment, Würz- 
burg 1875.— Ipem, Die eucharistische Wandlung und die Epiklese 


49 Scheeben-Atzberger, Handbuch formel,’ in the Innsbruck Zeit- 
der kath. Dogmatik, Vol. IV, 2, p. schrift. für kath. Theologie, 1896, 
619, Freiburg 1901.— See also PP. 745 sqq.; 1897, pp. 61 sqq.; G. 
Scheeben, “ Studien über den Mess- Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in 
kanon,” in the Katholik, of May- the First *Six Centuries of the 
ence, 1866, 2, pp. . 526 ,sqq,, 679 Church, -pp. 115 sqq., St. Louis 
sqq.; Ipem, Die Mysterien des 1913; G. Semeria, The Eucharistic 
Christentums, 3rd ed., pp. 449 sqq., Liturgy in the Roman Rite, its 
Freiburg 1912; E. Lingens, S. J., History and Symbolism, tr. by 
“Die eucharistische Konsekrations- Berry, pp. 157 sqq., New York 1911. 


MATTER AND FORM 217 


der griechischen und orientalischen Liturgien, Würzburg 1880. 
— Watterich, Der Konsekrationsmoment im hl. Abendmahle, 
Heidelberg 1896.— A. Fortescue, art. “ Epiklesis” in Vol. V of 
the Catholic Encyclopedia—J. W. Tyrer (Prot.), The Eucha- — 
ristic Epiclesis, London 1918.—A. M. Lépicier, Tract. de SS; 
Eucharistia, Paris 1917, Vol. I, pp. 318 sqq.—B. J. Otten, A 
Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. 1, St. Louis 1917, pp. 
354, 472. 


CHAPTER 4 


SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS 


The only solemn definition regarding the sacra- 
mental effects of the Holy Eucharist is Canon 5, 
Session XIII, of the Tridentine Council, directed 


against Luther and Calvin. It runs as follows: 


“If anyone saith that the principal fruit of the 
most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or 
that other effects do not result therefrom, let him 
be anathema.” * 

This definition leaves no doubt that the Holy 
Eucharist is a Sacrament of the living; but it does 
not tell us precisely what are its effects. These 
are, however, briefly indicated in Sess. XIII, cap. 
2, of the same Council,” and in Eugene IV’s fa- 
mous Decretum pro Armenis” A careful con- 
sideration of these indications enables us to group 


the effects of the Holy Eucharist around two cen- — 


tral ideas, viz.:. (1) Union with Christ by love, 
and (2) the spiritual nourishment of the soul. 
As a means of uniting the soul with Christ, 


1Sess. XIII, can. 5: “Sit quis provenire, anathema sit.’ (Denzin- 
dixerit, vel praecipuum fructum SS. ger-Bannwart, n. 887). 
Eucharistiae esse remissionem pec- 2 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 875. 
catorum vel ex ea non alios effectus 3 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 698. 
218 


hy Eh RR 


Ru = er ae Woy 


- SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS 219 


Holy Communion both sanctifies and heals. As 
a food, it produces in the soul effects similar to 
those produced by material food in the body. 


SECTION: 


v4 


x 


FIRST AND PRINCIPAL EFFECT: UNION OF THE 
SOUL WITH CHRIST BY LOVE 


The first and principal- effect ‘of the Holy 
Eucharist is union of the soul with Christ by 
love." 


As the sacramental union with Christ which results from 
the bodily consumption of the Sacred Host is an applica- 
tion rather than an effect of the Sacrament, the principal 
effect must be sought in the spiritual and mystical union 
of the soul with Jesus through the theological virtue of 
love, which is kindled, nourished, and consummated by 
physical contact with the Sacred Body of the Lord, ex 
opere operato. The Holy Eucharist is “ the Sacrament 
of Love” par excellence. 


a) Christ Himself describes Holy Communion 
as a union of love resembling the Trinitarian 
Perichoresis.”? Cfr. John VI, 57 sq.: “He that 
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth 
in me, and I in Him... . He that eateth me, 
the same also shall live by me.” 


The Fathers speak of this mysterious process as a 
unification, a marvellous blending of the soul with the 


1“ Adunatio ad Christum.”’ 2Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine 
(Decr. pro Armenis, 1439; Den- Trinity, pp. 281 sqq., and ed., St. 
zinger-Bannwart, n. 698). Louis 1915. 


220 


SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS 221 


essence of the God-man.? It consists neither in a natural 
synthesis analogous to that between soul and body, nor 
in a hypostatic union of the soul with the person of the 
Divine Logos, nor finally in a pantheistic deification of 
the communicant, but simply in a moral union which lies 
between the beatific vision, of which it is the exemplar 
and guarantee, and the earthly union effected by sancti- 
fying grace. Being a theandric effect produced by 
physical contact with the glorified humanity of the Word, 
this Eucharistic union,— rightly called communio,:— is 
far more intimate and profound than that effected in- 
visibly by the Holy Ghost or by the reception of the 
other Sacraments.° 


—b) This Eucharistic union of the soul with 
Christ forms the bond of charity existing between 
the faithful and constitutes them the “mystical 
Body” of Christ.° 


St. Paul says: “For we, being many, are one bread, 
one body, all that partake of one bread.”* That is to 
say, as the individual soul becomes one with Christ 
through Holy Communion, so all who partake of Christ 
in the Blessed Sacrament are made one. It is in this 
sense that St. Augustine writes: “Our Lord Christ 

. consecrated the mystery of our peace and union in 
His table. Whoever receives the mystery of union and 
does not keep the bond of peace,.does not receive the 
mystery for himself, but a testimony against himself.” ® 


3 St. Cyril of Alex., In Ioa., IV, Kommunion, §4 saq.,  Ratisbon 


W417. 1884. 
4V. supra, p. 2. 6Cfr. Conc. Trid., Sess. XIII, 
5 For a subtle discussion of this cap. 1 and 2. 

topic see Suarez, De Eucharistia, Tin Cor Ray, 

disp. 64, sect. 3; cfr. also Heim- 8 Serm. 272 ad Infant.: “ Domi- 


bucher, Die Wirkungen der hl. nus Christus... mysterium pacis 


DE OTIONG 


SECOND EFFECT: INCREASE OF SANCTIFYING 
GRACE 


Since Holy Communion is both a union of the 


soul with Christ and a spiritual nourishment, © 


it follows: (1) that the Eucharist is a Sac- 
rament of the living, and consequently does not 
cause, but presupposes, the state of grace in the 
recipient; (2) that it merely increases sanctify- 
ing grace. 


It is as impossible for the soul in the state of mortal 
sin to receive this heavenly Food with profit, as it would 
be for a corpse to assimilate natural food and drink. 
This is an article of faith. As we have seen,® the Coun- 
cil of Trent, in opposition to Luther and Calvin, expressly 
defined that the principal fruit of the Holy Eucharist 
is not the remission of sins. It further says: “ [Our 
Saviour] would also that this Sacrament should be re- 
ceived as the spiritual food of souls, whereby may be 
fed and strengthened those who live with His life who 
said: ‘He that eateth Me, the same shall live by 
et unitatis nostrae in sua mensa  sqq., Innsbruck 1894; Heinrich-Gut- 
consecravit. Qui accipit mysterium berlet, Dogmat. Theologie, Vol. IX, 
amitatis et non tenet vinculum pp. 739 sqq.; A. Rademacher, Die 
pacis, non accipit mysterium pro übernatürliche Lebensordnung nach 
se, sed testimonium contra se.’— der paulinischen und johanneischen 
Cfr. on this subject Alb. a Bulsano, Theologie, pp. 230 sqq., Freiburg 
Instit. Theol. Dogmat., ed. Gott- 1903. 
fried a Graun, Vol. II, pp. 705 9V. supra, p. 218. 

222 


ne 


SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS 223 


Me.’”1° We will consider each of these truths sep- 
arately. 


a) That Holy Communion does not establish 
sanctifying grace in the soul is clear from the 
fact that St. Paul demands a rigorous self-exam- 
ination in order to avoid the heinous offence of 
being guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord 
by “eating and drinking unworthily.” ' 


a) It is true that in instituting the Holy Eucharist 
Christ said of the Chalice: “ This is my blood of the 
new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remis- 
sion of sins.” 22. But in speaking thus, He evidently had 
in view an effect of the Sacrifice, not of the Sacrament ; 
for He did not say that His Blood would be drunk unto 
remission of sins, but shed for that purpose. 

The Fathers, beginning with St. Justin Martyr,’* never 
ceased to admonish the faithful that a clear conscience is a 
necessary requisite of worthy Communion. Thus St. 
John Chrysostom says: “We must always be on our 
guard; for no small punishment awaits those who com- 
municate unworthily. Remember how indignant thou 
art against the betrayer of Jesus and against those who 
crucified Him. Beware, therefore, lest thou become guilty 
of His Body and Blood. They killed His most sacred 
Body, thou receivest Him, in spite of so many benefits, 
with a guilt-stained soul.”!* St. Augustine insists that 
no one should approach the Holy Table except he be 


10:Sess. XIII, cap. 2° © Sums Tir, Core. XL, 27° sqds 
autem voluit sacramentum hoc tam- 12 Matth. XXVI, 28, 
quam spiritualem animarum cibum, 18 Apol., I, n. 66, 
quo alantur et confortentur viventes 14 Hom, in Maith., 82, n. 5. 


vita illius, qui dixit: Qui manducat 
me, et ipse vivet propter me.” — 


224. THE EUCHARIST (AS: A,SACRAMENT 


free from mortal sin. This was the guiding principle 
of the ancient penitential discipline. St. Cyprian, in his 
somewhat extravagant zeal for the rigorism of the prim- 
itive Church, bitterly deplores the “laxity” by which 
sinners were permitted in his day to approach the Holy 
Table without a long and severe penance.!? 

8B) Theologians are wont to discuss the question 
whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist, like Baptism, 
Confirmation, and Holy Orders, is capable of regaining 
its effects after it has been sacrilegiously received.‘ We 
may distinguish two cases. (1) A person who has con- 
fessed his sins in good faith, but without the necessary 
contrition, approaches the Holy Table in the state of 
mortal sin and, unconscious of the condition of his soul, 
imagines he receives worthily, whereas in reality he is 
excused from the crime of sacrilege only by his igno- 
rance. Can such a one regain the fruits of his Com- 
munion later by an act of perfect contrition or a valid 
confession? (2) A person consciously goes to Com- 
munion in the state of mortal sin and thus adds a new sin 
to those he has already committed. Can such a sacri- 
legious Communion work its effects after the restoration 
of the soul’s proper moral condition has been effected? 
Suarez,!7 De Lugo,’® and theologians generally answer 
both questions in the negative, on the ground that the 
Eucharist differs in this respect from the Sacraments 
which imprint a character upon the soul, first, because it 


16 On “ reviviscence ” see Pohle- 
Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. 1, pp. 


15 Cfr. St. Augustine, Tract. in 
Ioa., 26, n. 11: “ Innocentiam ad 


altare apportare.’’— St. Cyprian, Ep. 
1o ad Presb.: “ Nondum poenitentia 
acta, nondum exomologesi factä, 
nondum manu eius ab episcopo et 
clero impositä Eucharistia illis da- 
tur.”— Cfr. Tepe, Inst. Theol., Vol. 
IV, pp. 277 sqq., Paris 1899. 


156 sqq., 193 sqq. 

17 De Eucharistie, disp. 63, sect. 
8. 
18 De Sacramentis in Genere, 


disp. 9, sect, 6, n. 107 sqq. 


ott FORA ae 


> 
Ry 


~ 


SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS 225 


can be received repeatedly, and second, because it is not 
strictly necessary for salvation. It would, they say, be 
inconsistent to assume that a man who has communicated 
unworthily throughout life, should be able by a good 
confession on his deathbed to obtain the fruits of all his 
sacrilegious Communions. _ 

What if a communicant sacrilegiously approaching the 
Holy Table were to make an act of perfect contrition 
before the sacred species became chemically dissolved? 
According to the probable opinion of many theologiahs, 
the Holy Eucharist works its effects successively, not 
instantaneously, and hence it seems reasonable to assume 
that in such a case the Sacrament begins to take effect 
as soon as the ober gratiae is removed by perfect contri- 
tion.?° | 


b) Since the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrament 
of the living, its effect can consist in nothing else 
than an increase of sanctifying grace (tustificatio 
secunda). This is expressly defined in the De- 
cretum pro Armenis: “And because man by 
grace is incorporated with Christ and united with 
His members, it follows that grace is augmented 
in those who receive this Sacrament [of the 
Eucharist] worthily.” * The reason is to be 
sought partly in the Church’s teaching regarding 
the efficacy of her Sacraments in general, and 
partly in the fact that the Eucharist is essentially 


19 On the possibility of the justi- “Et quoniam per gratiam homo 
fication per accidens of a mortal Christo incorporatur et membris eius 
sinner through the Holy Eucharist,  «unitur, consequens est quod per hoc 
see Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, sacramentum in sumentibus digne 
Vol. I, pp. 68 sag. gratia augeatur.” 

20 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 698: 


226 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


a banquet which nourishes and sustains the soul 
by food and drink. Christ Himself assures us: 


“He that eateth this bread shall live forever.” is 


It is not so easy to discern in what precisely consists 
the “sacramental grace” of the Eucharist, 7. e. that par- 
ticular grace by which this Sacrament differs specifically 
from the others. We have seen that sanctifying grace 
and habitual charity are inseparably bound up, if not 
actually identical,?? with each other. Now all the Sacra- 
ments, when worthily received, augment sanctifying 
grace and consequently aid man in becoming mystically 
united with Christ. If the Holy Eucharist accomplishes 
nothing more than this, how does it differ from the re- 
maining Sacraments? Suarez says that, whereas the other 
Sacraments produce certain special effects, for the sake 
of which they confer special helps and some increase of 
grace, the Holy Eucharist has for its primary and direct 
effect to nourish charity solely for its own perfection 
and a more intimate union with Christ.2? According to 
this theory, the special prerogative of the Holy Eucha- 


rist lies not merely in its essence and content, 7. e. Christ 


Himself, but likewise in its special object and purpose 
of fanning the flame of actual love to greater ardor. 
It is this unique effect, which in its last analysis is 
identical with the union with Christ by love, that we 


21 John VI, 59.— Cfr. Tertullian’s per se primo et directe ad nutrien- 
graphic expression: ‘‘Caro corpore dam caritatem propter solam ma- 
et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut iorem perfectionem eius maioremque 
anima de Deo saginetur.” (De unionem cum Christo, sed ordinan- 
Resurrect. Carnis, 8). tur ad speciales effectus, propter 

22V. Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual quos conferunt specialia auxilia et 
and Habitual, pp. 336 sqq., St. Louis aliquod augmentum gratiae: at vero 


NE TEE Pe TE 
an en Lh Sa oe ie ur nd ar" ? 


ARR 22 ag 
~~ ee 


heat 


Loge pga. 
a 
vo 


a 


ab wee en “ag 
’ Fe; a 


1915. hoc sacramentum per se primo ordr 
23 Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, natur ad perficiendam unionem cum 


disp. 63, sect. 1, n. 3: “Reliqua Christo.” 
sacramenta vivorum non ordinantur 


SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS 227 


recognize as the so-called gratia sacramentalis of the Eu- 
charist.?* 


c) Together with an increase of sanctifying 


grace the Holy Eucharist produces as its sec- 
ondary effect a certain spiritual relish or delight 
(delectatio spiritualis). 


Just as food and drink delight and refresh the heart of 
man, so does this “ Heavenly Bread,” which “ contains 
within itself all sweetness,” refresh and delight the soul 
of the worthy recipient. This simile has been embodied 
in the Decretum pro Armenis??” The delight produced 
in the soul of the devout communicant must not, how- 
ever, be confounded with emotional joy or sensible 
sweetness. Although both may occur as the result of 
special grace, the true nature of the delectatio spiritualis 
produced by the Holy Eucharist is manifested in a cer- 
tain cheerful and perhaps even fervent willingness in 
all that regards Christ and His Church, and in the con- 
scientious fulfilment of the duties of one’s state of 
life. Interior desolation and spiritual dryness are by no 
means a sign of inadequate preparation, and much less of 
an unworthy Communion. On the contrary, they are 
quite often trials by which God tests the souls of those 
whom He loves. If the communicant has fulfilled all 
the required conditions, he may rest assured that the 
Sacrament will work its effects in the manner explained 
by St. Thomas in the Third Part of the Summa: 


24V. No. 1, supra—Cfr. St. terialis cibus et potus quoad vitam 


Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 79, 
art. 1; Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente der 
kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 
560 sqq. 

25 Denzinger-Bannwart, .n. 698: 
“ Omnemque effectum, quem ma- 


agunt temporalem: sustentando, au- 
gendo, reparando et delectando, sa- 
cramentum hoc quoad vitam opera- 
tur spiritualem.” 

26 Cfr. Thomas a Kempis, Imit. 
Christi, IV, 12, 15. 


228 «THE EUCHARIST AS: A SACRAMENT 
“ through this Sacrament, as far as its power is 
concerned, not only is the habit of grace and virtue be- — 
stowed, but man is furthermore aroused to act, according 
to 2 Cor. V, 14: ‘The charity of Christ presseth us.’ 7 
Hence it is that the soul is spiritually nourished through _ 
the power of this Sacrament, by being spiritually glad- — 
dened, and as it were inebriated with the sweetness of the _ 
divine goodness.” ?7 4 


27 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 79, art. 
1, ad 2: “Per hoc sacramentum, 
quantum est ex sui virtute, non 
solum habitus gratiae et virtutis con- 
fertur, sed etiam excitatur homo in 


per hoc, quod anima spiritualiter — 
delectatur et quodammodo inebriatur — 
dulcedine bonitatis divinae.”—Cfr. — 
Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 63, — 
sect. 9; De Lugo, De Eucharistia, — 


disp. 12, sect. 4; Heinrich-Gutber- _ 
let, Dogmat. Theologie, Vol. IX, © 
pp. 754 sqq. ; 


actum secundum illud (2 Cor. V, 
14): Caritas Christi urget nos. Et ~ 
inde est quod ex virtute huius sa- 
cramenti anima spiritualiter reficitur 


SECTION 3 


THIRD EFFECT: THE BLOTTING OUT OF VENIAL 
SINS AND THE PRESERVATION OF THE 
SOUL FROM MORTAL SINS 


The Holy Eucharist is not merely a food, it is 
also a medicine. The Tridentine Council calls 
it “an antidote, whereby we may be freed from 
daily faults and be preserved from mortal Sista 
This twofold effect can be readily understood if 
viewed in the light of the two central ideas men- 
tioned above, 7. e. food and medicine. 


a) As material food, when used in the proper way, ban- 
_ ishes minor bodily weaknesses and preserves man’s phys- 
ical strength, so this immaterial food removes the lesser 
ailments of the soul and preserves it from spiritual death. 
The Holy Eucharist is a union based upon love, and as 
such removes with its purifying flame the stains which 
adhere to the soul, and at the same time serves as a pre- 
ventive of grievous sin. 


-_b) The Holy Eucharist preserves the soul from 
erievous sin by allaying concupiscence (con- 
cupiscentia, fomes peccati).” 


1“... antidotum, quo liberemur 2Cfr. Catech. Roman., De Eu- 


a culpis quotidianis [scil. veniahbus] charistia, qu. 40: * Carnis etiam 


et a mortalibus praeservemur.” libidinem cohibet ac reprimit.” 
(Sess. XIII, cap. 2). - 


229 


230 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 
This special effect of holy Communion is of great im- 

portance for the daily life of the faithful and in the ad- 

ministration of the Sacrament of Penance. Justly, 


therefore, do spiritual writers recommend frequent Com- : 


munion as the most effective remedy for impurity, since 


its powerful influence is felt even after all other means — 


have proved unavailing. Concupiscence is the chief 


source of mortal sin. Though St. Thomas seems to re- 
gard the allaying influence of the Holy Eucharist upon 


concupiscence rather as indirect,? many of the Fathers z 


hold that it is exercised directly by repressing inordi- 
nate desires and healing the soul.* 

c) Whether the Holy Eucharist is directly conducive 
to the remission of the temporal punishments due to sin, 
is a disputed question. Most theologians hold with St. 
Thomas that the Sacrament of the Altar was not insti- 
tuted as a means of satisfaction. It may safely be as- 
sumed, however, that the Eucharist produces an indirect 


va 


effect in this regard by means of the acts of love which © 


it involves. St. Thomas says: “ Because union is the 
effect of charity, from the fervor of which man obtains 
forgiveness, not only of guilt but also of punishment, 
hence it is that as a consequence, and by concomitance 
with the chief effect, man obtains forgiveness of the pun- 
ishment ;— not indeed of the entire punishment, but ac- 
cording to the measure of his devotion and fervor.” ® 
Nevertheless some theologians (like Ysambert and 


8 Cfr. Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 79 
art. 6, ad 3: “ Diminuit fomitem 
ex quadam consequentia, inquantum 
auget caritatem, quia, sicut Au- 
gustinus dicit, augmentum caritatis 
est diminutio cupiditatis.”’ 

4 Cfr. St. Chrysostom, Hom. in 
Ioa., 46, n. 4: “Si quis aestuat, 
hunc adeat fontem et ardorem tem- 


peret; nam aestum fugat et adusta 
omnia refrigerat.’— Other Patristic 
texts of similar tenor in Tepe, Inst. 
Theol., Vol. IV, p. 286. 

5 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 79, art. 
5: “Sed quia unitas fit per carita- 
tem, ex cuius fervore aliquis con- 
sequitur remissionem non solum cul- 
pae, sed etiam poenae, inde est quod 


ay aT. wre 


Te Wage) 


SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS 231 
Tepe®) teach that the Holy Eucharist is directly con- 
ducive to the remission of temporal punishments, and in 
particular that the punishments due to the venial sins 
forgiven by Holy Communion are wholly, or at least 
partially, remitted therein. 

As regards the effects of grace in behalf of others, 
it is evident that the purely personal fruits of Holy Com- 
munion,— e. g. the increase of sanctifying grace, delight 
of soul, etc.,— can be applied only to the recipient. Aside 
from this it is generally held by Catholic divines that the 
prayers of petition made in the presence of the Eucharis- 
tic Lord are more readily heard by God, and that the fruits 
of Communion, as a means of satisfaction for sin, may 
be applied to others, and especially, per modum suffragii, 
to the poor souls in purgatory. A book by Theophilus 
Renaud, in which the pious custom of offering up holy 
Communion for the departed was disparaged as super- 
stitious, was put upon the Index.’ 


Sy 
ex consequenti per quandam con- 6 Ysambert, Comment. in S. 


comitantiam ad principalem effectum 
homo consequitur remissionem poe- 
nae, non quidem totius, sed secun- 
dum modum suae devotionis et 


 fervoris.”’ 


Theol., III, qu. 79, disp. 1, art. 7.— 
Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. IV, p. 283. 

7 On the opinion of St. Thomas 
see the Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 79, 
alter 


SECTION: 4 


FOURTH EFFECT: THE PLEDGE OF MAN’S GLORIOUS 
RESURRECTION AND ETERNAL HAPPINESS 


“Eternal salvation” and “glorious resurrec- 
tion” are correlative terms. Being an effective 
prophylactic against mortal sin,’ the Holy Eu- 
charist is quite naturally, in the words of the Tri- 
dentine Council, “a pledge of our glory to come 
and everlasting happiness.”* The emphasis must ~ 
be laid on the prerogative of our glorious resur- 
rection, which involves eternal happiness. 

a) That the Holy Eucharist really and truly — 
effects a glorious. resurrection, is plain from 
Christ’s own words, as recorded in the Gospel of 
St. John: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh 
my blood, hath everlasting life, and I will raise 4 
him up in the last day.”” St. Ignatius of An- | 
tioch expresses the common consent of the 
Fathers when he says: “Breaking bread,” ... 
is a means of immortality, an antidote against — 
death.” ° 


1V. supra, pp. 229 sqq. 4 dprov. 

2... pignus futurae nostrae Bégrl ddpuaxov  abavacias, 
gloriae et perpetuae felicitatis.” dvrlöoros Tov un dmodaveiv. (Ep 
(Sess. XIII, cap. 2). ad Ephes., 20).— Other Patristic — 

8John VI, 55. texts supra, PP. 71 SQ. | 


232 


SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS 233 


b) This fourth effect of holy Communion is shared 
by the body. Not, of course, as if the material body be- 
came the subject of immaterial grace. No; but by its 
contact with the Eucharistic species, and hence indi- 
rectly with the living Flesh of Christ,® the human body 
becomes, as it were, kin to the glorified Body of our 
Lord and thereby acquires a moral right to the future 
resurrection. This right or claim may be compared to 
that of the Blessed Virgin Mary to be assumed into 
Heaven. The Mother of God, as the former abode of 
the Word made flesh, had a moral claim to be bodily 
taken up into Heaven; similarly the Christian who has 
received that same Sacred Body in holy Communion, 
and thereby become its abode, has a claim to rise bodily 
from the dead. 

The question has been raised, whether this is effected 
by a “physical quality ” (Contenson’) or by a “germ of 
immortality’ (Heimbucher ®) implanted in the body of 
the communicant. It would profit nothing to enter into 
so highly speculative a debate. We will merely note 
that those among the Fathers who speak in exaggerated 
terms of a “ conversion ” of human flesh into that of the 
God-man, evidently do not mean to assert more than a 
moral claim to the resurrection of the body. 

It was the desire for immortality that gave rise to cer- 
tain religious practices resembling the Eucharist among 
pagan nations. The longing of the Greeks for am- 
brosia and nectar, the desire of the Iranians to be fed 
with haoma, and the craving of the ancient Hindus to 
partake of the food of their gods, which they called 

6 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 8 Die Wirkungen der hl. Kom- 
DD. 282) sq: munion, § 43, Ratisbon 1884. 


7 Theologia Mentis et Cordis, XI, 
Da 2, disse 3. 


234° “THE -EUCHARTST AS’ A SACRAMENT 


soma, no doubt sprang from the natural appetite for 
divine power and deathlessness which is implanted in 
every human heart. But as all these notions, as well as 
the practices inspired by them, are based on Polytheism, 


they present but an extrinsic analogy with holy Com- 
munion.? 


Reapincs:— J. B. Dalgairns, The Holy Communion, Dublin 
1861 (often reprinted)— M. Heimbucher, Die Wirkungen der 
hl. Kommunion, Ratisbon 1884.—C, Jos. Lohrum, Die sakra- 
mentalen Wirkungen der hl. Eucharistie, Mayence 1886.— Bode- 
wig, Der Nutzen der hl. Kommunion, Mayence 1889.— J. Bel- 
lamy, Les Effets de la Communion, Paris 1900.—J. C. Hedley, 
The Holy Eucharist, pp. 107 sqq., London 1907.—B. J. Otten, 
S. J.. A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. Il, St. Louis 
1918, pp. 334 sq. 


90On the question whether the 
Christian Eucharist owes anything 
to a pagan, or even Jewish, back- 
ground of Mystery Meals, and if so, 
what, see W. M. Groton, The Chris- 
tian Eucharist. and the Pagan Cults, 
New York 1914. Dr. Groton (who is 


a Protestant) shows that there is no 
sufficient proof that the Eucharist 
borrowed anything whatsoever from 
alien cults and that it is overwhelm- 
ingly probable that this is not the 
case. 


CHAPTER III 


THE NECESSITY OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST FOR 
SALVATION 


The question as to the necessity of the Holy 
Eucharist for salvation permits of a twofold 
formulation: 

(1) Is it necessary to receive the Eucharist in 
order to be saved? 

(2) Must the Holy Eucharist be received un- 
der both kinds? 


235 


SECTION 


IN WHAT SENSE THE HOLY EUCHARIST IS 
NECESSARY FOR SALVATION 


We distinguish two kinds of necessity: (1) the ne- 
cessity of means (necessitas medii) and (2) the necessity 
of precept (necessitas praecepti). 

A further pertinent distinction is between infants and 
adults. 


Thesis I: In the case of infants the Holy Eucharist 
is not necessary for salvation either as a means or by 
way of precept. 


This thesis embodies an article of faith. 

Proof. The dogma stated in our thesis was 
denied by a few Greek schismatics (Kabasilas, 
and Simeon of Thessalonica) and by some the- 
ologians of the Reformed Church. Rosmini held 
that Communion is strictly necessary for salva- 
tion. He was so firmly convinced of this that he 
taught that Christ, upon his descent into hell 
(limbo), personally administered the Sacrament 
to the patriarchs, and that even to-day in- 
fants who die without holy Communion receive 
it miraculously in ipso mortis instanti in the other 


world. This teaching was formally condemned 
236 


NECESSITY 237 


by Leo XIII." The Council of Trent had vir- 
tually rejected it in advance when it declared: 
“If anyone saith that the Communion of the 
Eucharist is necessary for little children before 
they have arrived at the years of discretion, let 
him be anathema.’ ? As there can be no ques- 
tion of a necessity of precept in the case of in- 
fants, the Council evidently meant to deny the 
necessity of means. 

a) The Biblical argument for our thesis is 
based on those texts in which eternal life is con- 
ditioned solely on Baptism. 


Cfr. Mark XVI, 16: “He that believeth and is bap- 
tized, shall be saved.” In conformity with this and sim- 
ilar Gospel texts, St. Paul teaches that “ there is no con- 
demnation ” (nihil damnationis) to them that are bap- 
tized in Christ Jesus. All these texts would be false if 
baptized infants were excluded from Heaven on account 
of their failure to receive the Holy Eucharist. 


b) Instudying the Tradition on this subjeet we 
must distinguish carefully between theory and 
practice. 


a) From the third to the eleventh century the Latin 
Church administered the Eucharist to infants under the 
species of wine immediately after Baptism and Confirma- 
tion, as is still the custom among the Greeks and Orien- 

1 Prop: Rosmini Damn. a Leone discretionis pervenerint, necessariam 
Ill da. 14, Dee. 2887," prop. 732 esse Eucharistiae  communionem, 
(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1922). anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bann- 


2 Sess XXI, can. 42. oS) quisi? wart, n..037): 
dixerit, parvulis, antequam ad annos 3 Rom. VIII, 1. 


238. THE EUCHARIST As A SACRAMENT 


tals. Why did the Church introduce this custom? Did y 
she perhaps believe that infants could not be saved with- — 


out holy Communion? This is not at all likely. The 
Church never held Confirmation to be necessary for sal- 
vation, yet she administered it to infants. 


sary for salvation was Baptism. The Council of Trent 
declares that the custom of giving holy Communion to 
children was not based upon the erroneous belief that 


this Sacrament was necessary for salvation, but upon’ = 


the circumstances of the times.* 


ß) The Fathers generally taught that every child dy- — 
ing in baptismal innocence, even without Communion, E 
The only notable exception 
Petavius, Maldonatus, 
Schanz, and other eminent theologians do not hesitate to | a 
declare his teaching on this point to be out of tune with — 
that of the Church. But this conclusion is hardly war- — 
ranted. St. Augustine expressly says that “if an infant — 
departs from the present life after he has received Bap- _ 


goes straight to Heaven. 
appears to be St. Augustine. 


tism, the guilt in which he was involved by original sin 
being [thereby] done away, he shall be made perfect in 
that light of truth which .. ; illumines the justified in 
the presence of their Maker.” ° 
sages of the Saint’s writings in which he applies John 


VI, 54 (“ Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and } 
drink his blood, you shall not have life in you”) indis- 


4Sess. XXI, cap. 4: “Neque versia credendum est.” (Denzinger- 


There are a few pas- 


ideo tamen damnanda est antiquitas, 
si eum morem in quibusdam locis 
aliquando servavit. Ut enim SS. 
tlli Patres sui facti probabilem cau- 
sam pro illius temporis ratione ha- 
buerunt, ita certe eos nulla salutis 
necessitate id fecisse sine contro- 


Bannwart, n. 933). 


5 De Peccatorum Meritis et Re- 


a 
J 


missione, I, c. 25: “ Verumtamen 


si parvulus percepto baptismo de — 


hac vita migraverit, soluto reatu, 
cui originaliter obnoxius erat, per- 
ficietur . illo  lumine 
(Migne, P, L., XLIV, 123). 


veritatis.” 


Ten ey pny 
Er 


The only 
Sacrament that she always regarded as absolutely neces- 


NECESSITY 239 
criminately to infants and adults. But we need not nec- 
essarily assume a contradiction in St. Augustine’s teach- 
ing. Preoccupied as he is with the task of disproving 
the Pelagian distinction between regnum coelorum and 
vita aeterna, the zealous Bishop of Hippo distinguishes 
between sacramental and spiritual or mystical Commun- 
ion, and teaches that infants, by the fact of their be- 
ing united to Christ in Baptism, experience the effect 
of the Eucharist, 7. e. spiritual union with Christ (res 
sacramenti), as it were by anticipation, and thus com- 
ply with our Lord’s command. Baptism he regards 
as a claim but likewise as a virtual desire to receive the 
Eucharist. By their anticipatory though purely mystical 
reception of the Body and Blood of Christ in Baptism, 
these infants are enabled to partake not only of the 
regnum Dei (John III, 5) promised as an effect of Bap- 
tism, but likewise of the vita aeterna (John VI, 54) con- 
nected with the Holy Eucharist. This, in fact, is Augus- 
tine’s own explanation of his teaching. “ Does not truth 
proclaim with unfaltering tongue,’ he asks, “that un- 
baptized infants not only cannot enter into the kingdom 
of God, but cannot have everlasting life, except in the 
Body of Christ, into which, that they may receive incor- 
poration, they are washed in the Sacrament of Bap- 
tism?”’® 

This interpretation of the Saint’s teaching is confirmed 
by a passage in the writings of his faithful disciple St. 
Fulgentius” We do not mean to deny, however, that 


Op. cit:, III, 4, 8: “Nonne 7 Asked by the deacon Ferrandus 


veritas sine ulla ambiguitate pro- 
- clamat, non solum in regnum Dei 
non baptizatos parvulos intrare non 
posse, sed nec vitam aeternam posse 
habere praeter Christi corpus, cut 
ut incorporentur sacramento bap- 
_ tismatis imbuuntur? 7 


concerning the probable fate of a 
young man who had died suddenly 
after Baptism, without having re- 
ceived holy Communion, Fulgentius 
says: ‘‘ Arbitror, sancte frater, dis- 
putationem nostram praeclari D. 
Augustini sermone firmatam nec 


> 


240 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


St. Augustine in his controversies with the Pelagians 
made some rather extravagant assertions with regard 
to the necessity of the Blessed Eucharist. 


c) From the philosophical point of view the — 
following’ considerations are worth pondering. — 
If infants could not be saved without the Eu- 
charist, holy Communion would be necessary to _ 
them either as a means or in consequence of a 
positive precept. It is impossible to assume the ~ 
latter because infants are not yet amenable to 
law; or the former, because baptismal innocence 
can be lost only through mortal sin.* 


To explain the almost universal custom of the ancient _ 
Church of giving Communion to children, theologians 
discuss the question whether the sacramental grace con- _ 
ferred by Baptism is augmented by the Holy Eucharist. 
Oswald ® is inclined to answer this question in the nega- _ 
tive; but long before him Suarez declared that the af- — 
firmative answer has “the greater weight of authority 
and reason.” Indeed, it would be repugnant to assume — 
that the primitive Church for centuries practiced a cus- 
tom of which she knew that it was of no benefit to her © 
children. Furthermore, as Baptism has the power of — 


cuiquam esse dliquatenus ambigen- 
dum, tunc unumquemque fidelium 
corporis sanguinisque Dominici par- 
ticipem fieri, quando in baptismate 
membrum corporis Christi efficitur, 
nec alienari ab eo panis calicisque 
‘consortio, etiamsi antequam panem 
illum comedat et calicem bibat, de 
hoc saeculo in unitate corporis Chri- 
sti constitutus abscedat.” Ep. ı2 
ad Ferrand., n. 26 (Migne, P. L., 
LXV, 392). 


2 


_ 8Cfr, Conc. Trident., Sess. XXI, 
cap. 4: “,.. siquidem per bap- — 


tismi lavacrum regenerati et Christo 
iam filiorum 
Dei gratiam in illa aetate amittere 
(Denzinger-Bann- — 


incorporati adeptam 
non possunt.” 
wart, n. 933). 4 

9 Die Lehre von den hl. Sakra- 
menten, Vol. I, sth ed., pp. 491 
sq., Münster 1894. 


NECESSITY 241 


producing sanctifying grace in the soul without the 
knowledge and will of the recipient, what reason is 
there for assuming that Holy Communion is unable to 
increase that grace ex opere operato, especially since its 
effects (unlike those of Baptism and Confirmation) are 
derived from an influence exercised upon body and soul 
alike by the life-giving Flesh of Jesus Christ? 


_ Thesis II: For adults the reception of the Holy 
Eucharist is necessary as a matter of precept. 


This proposition is likewise de fide. 

Proof. Communion is prescribed for adult 
Catholics both by the law of the Church and 
by a divine command. Cfr. John VI, 54: 
“Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man 
and drink his blood, you shall not have life in 


you.” 

a) In conditioning eternal life upon the reception of 
His Body and Blood, our Lord obviously meant to give 
a strict command. There can be no doubt that His 
precept (Luke XXII, 19): “Do this for a commem- 
oration of me,” refers not only to the celebration of the 
Eucharistic sacrifice on the part of the priest, but like- 
wise to the reception of the Blessed Sacrament by the 
faithful, especially since the Apostles were commanded 
to distribute this Sacrament to all.*° 

It is rather difficult to understand how some theolo- 
gians can hold that Communion is merely an ecclesiasti- 
cal precept. The Council of Trent plainly intimates that 
it is a divine command.** 


20a Cored 1; 26. 
11 Sess. XIII, cap. 2 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 875). 


242 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


b) As to the frequency with which He desires _ 


us to receive Him in holy Communion, Christ 


has given no definite precept, and hence this isa 
matter left to the Church to determine. | 2 
Ecclesiastical discipline in this respect has undergone q 


many changes in the course of centuries. The early — 
Christians seem to have observed daily Communion? _ 


as a strict precept. In the third century, Pope Fabian _ 


(236-250) mitigated the former severity of the Church’s — 


law to the extent of making the reception of the Eucha- 


rist a matter of strict duty only three times a year, viz.: 
at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. The Fourth Coun- — 


cil of the Lateran, held under Innocent III (1215), pre- 


scribed annual Communion during Easter time as the — 


minimum of obligation? St. Thomas ascribes this ordi- 


nance chiefly to “the abounding of iniquity and the — 
growing cold of charity.”!* The Lateran law marked — 
the uttermost limit of indulgence to which the Church | 
could go, and hence the Council of Trent did not hesi- — 
tate to raise the ecclesiastical precept of yearly pas- — 
chal Communion to the rank of a dogma: “If anyone — 
denieth that all and each of Christ’s faithful of both — 
sexes are bound, when they have attained to the years © 
of discretion, to communicate every year, at least at — 
Easter, in accordance with the precept of holy Mother — 
Church, let him be anathema.” 15 a 

Officially the Church has never ceased to proclaim her — 


12 Cfr. Acts II, 42. negaverit, omnes et singulos Christi 
13 Conc. Lat. IV, cap. 21 (Den- fideles utriusque sexus, quum — 


zinger-Bannwart, n. 437). ad annos discretionis pervenerint, — 
14 St. Thomas, Summa Theol., teneri singulis annis saltem in pas- 


ga, qu. 80, art. 10, ad 5.— The chate ad communicandum iuxta prae- — 
passage in quotation marks is taken ceptum S. matris Ecclesiae, anathe- — 
from Matth. XXIV, 10. ma sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. ° 

15 Sess,’ XIII; can. 9: .* Si quis 891). 


NECESSITY 243 
desire that the faithful should approach the Holy Table 
more frequently. The Council of Trent declares: “ The 
sacred and holy Synod would fain, indeed, that, at each 
Mass, the faithful who are present should communicate, | 
not only in spiritual desire, but also by the sacramental 
participation of the Eucharist, that thereby a more 
abundant fruit might be derived to them from this most 
holy sacrifice.” *° 

The famous controversy regarding the disposition re- 
quired for frequent and daily Communion was authori- 
tatively set at rest by the decree “Sacra Tridentina 
Synodus,” issued Dec. 20, 1905, by the late Pope Pius X, 
through the S. Congregation of the Council. According 
to this epoch-making document, “frequent and daily 
Communion, so earnestly desired by Christ and by the 
Church, should be open to all the faithful,” and no one 
may be denied it “who is in the state of grace and 
approaches the Holy Table with a right and devout in- 
tention. ... A right intention consists in this: that he 
who approaches the Holy Table should do so, not out of 
routine or vainglory or human respect, but for the pur- 
pose of pleasing God, of being more closely united with 
Him by charity, and of seeking this divine remedy for 
his weaknesses and defects.” *” 

In a later decree, “ Quam Singular,” of August Io, 
1910, the same saintly Pontiff, pointing to the ancient 
practice of the Church, and with special reference to 
the Fourth Lateran Council and that of Trent,'* con- 
demns the practice of postponing first Communion 


16 Sess. XXII, cap. 6 (Denzinger- 
Bannwart, n. 944). 

17 The text of the decree in Den- 
zinger-Bannwart, n. 1985 sq. An 


' English translation, with a historical 


sketch and commentary, will be 
found in J. B. Ferreres, S. J., The 


Decree on Daily Communion, tr. by 
Jimenez, London 1909. See also 
Hedley, The Holy Eucharist, pp. 
129 sqq., London 1907. . 

18 Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, can. 
9. 


244 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


to the tenth, twelfth, or even fourteenth year, and — 
commands that children should be led to the Holy — 
Table as soon as they are able to “distinguish Eucha- — 
ristic bread from common and material bread.” The — 
full use of reason is not required, but merely “a certain — 
knowledge” of the rudiments of faith.’ . 

To deprive those of whom our Lord Himself said: — 
“Suffer little children to come to me,” of the Holy Eu- 
charist at a time when they are in such great need of — 
this Heavenly Food to strengthen their soul against — 
temptations, and when their reason is sufficiently ee 
oped to make them amenable to the divine precept,”° is — 3 
little less than. a erime.?! 2 


Thesis III: The Holy Bucharist is not absolutely 
necessary for adults as a means of salvation. 


This may be set down as a propositio certa. 

Proof. The Holy Eucharist might be neces- 
sary for salvation if Communion by itself con- 
stituted a person in the state of grace, or if sanc- — 
tifying grace could not be preserved without — 
Communion. But neither one of these supposi- — 
tions is tenable... 3 


a) Communion does not cause justification (iustifi- — 
catio prima), but presupposes the state of sanctifying — 
grace. On the other hand, cases of necessity may arise — 
(e. g. on a long sea voyage), in which a person would be 


19 Official English version of the Vorurteile gegen das Erstkommu- — 
“Quam Singulari,’ together with niondekret, Innsbruck 1911; M 
a commentary, in F. M. De Zulueta, Gatterer, S. J., Die Erstkommunion — 
S. J., Early First Communion, Lon- der Kinder, Brixen 1911; De Zulu © 
don 1911. eta, S. J., Early First Communion, 

20 John VI, 50 sqq. London ıgıı. 

21:Cir, EH. Springer, .S. Ju. Die 


NECESSITY 245 


dispensed from receiving Communion, and the sacramen- 
tal graces of the Eucharist might be supplied by actual 
graces. It is only when we view the matter in this light _ 
that we can understand why the Church in cases of urgent 
necessity never demands the votum sacramenti in regard 
to the Eucharist, as she does in regard to Baptism and 
Penance,?? and why the primitive Church, without going’ 
counter to the divine command, withheld the Eucharist 
from certain sinners even on their death-bed. 

b) Some eminent divines, like Suarez,?* claim that the 
Eucharist is at least a relatively and morally necessary 
means of salvation, in the sense that no adult Catholic can 
sustain his spiritual, supernatural life if he voluntarily 
neglects to receive holy Communion for a long time. 
This view is supported by the solemn words which Christ 
spoke when He promised the Eucharist,?* by the help- 
lessness and perversity of human nature, subject as it is 
to many and violent temptations, by the very nature of the 
Sacrament as the spiritual food and medicine of our 
souls, and by the daily experience of confessors. 

Several of these considerations furnish additional 
proofs for the wisdom of Pius X in fixing the age when 
children should be admitted to the Holy Table at about 
seven years. 


Reapincs:—J. Behringer, Die hl. Kommunion in ihren Wir- 
kungen und ihrer Heilsnotwendigkeit, Ratisbon 1808. 

J. B. Ferreres, S. J., The Decree on Daily Communion. A 
Historical Sketch and Commentary, tr. by H. Jimenez, S. J., Lon- 
don 1909.— F. M. De Zulueta, S. J., Early First Communion. A 
Commentary upon the Decree “ Quam Singular,’ London 1911.— 
J. C. Hedley, The Holy Eucharist, pp. 129 sqq., London 1907. 


22 The votum Eucharistiae de- means. Cfr. De Lugo, De Eucha- 
manded by St. Augustine (v. supra, ristia, disp. 3, sect. 2. 
Thesis“ I) and St. Thomas: “(S. 23 De Eucharistia, disp. 40, sect. 
iheolas 3a dies 735. arts, 3), AS uot, 2, 
based upon a strict necessity of | 24Cfr. John VI, 50 sqq. 


SECTION 2 


COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND 


I. GIVING THE CHALICE TO THE LaiTy.—So — 
far as we know, a school teacher in Prague, Peter 
of Dresden, was the first to maintain that Com- — 
munion under both kinds is necessary for salva- — 
tion and that the Church wrongs the laity by de- — 
priving them of the Chalice. 3 


a) The cry was taken up by the Hussites, under the — 
leadership of Jacob of Misa. Ziska, chief of the Tabor- — 
ites, so-called from their dwelling on a mountain top in — 
Bohemia, set up three hundred tables in order to satisfy q 
the demands of the people for Communion under both | 
species. The Council of Constance (1415), in a decree — 
approved by Martin V (1418), rejected the erroneous — 
teaching of the Utraquists and ordained that the Chalice — 
should not be given to the laity, and that all who obsti- 
nately defended the practice were to be regarded as here- _ 
tics.1 This led to a revolution and the terrible Hussite | 
wars. To make peace, the Council of Basle (1431) — 
granted the Chalice to the Calixtines of Bohemia under 
certain conditions, the chief of which was the acknowl- — 
edgment of Christ’s integral presence under either kind.? — 


1“ Pertinaciter asserentes opposi- 2 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 668.— 
tum tamquam haeretici arcendi Cfr. J. B. Hughes, in the Core 
sunt.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. Encyclopedia, XV, 245. ; 
626). 


246 


COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND 247 


To this some of the Hussites demurred and in course 
of time formed the sect of the Moravian Brothers. 


b) Utraquism led to new difficulties at the time © 
of the so-called Reformation. 


Luther at first wavered in his attitude towards. 
the Hussite demand for Communion under both kinds. 
At times he defended the right of an ecumenical council 
to decide the question. Then again he claimed that it was 

for the individual to say whether he wished to receive 

Communion under the form of bread alone or under both 

species. As against the Council of Constance the apos- 

tate friar of Wittenberg declared that every Christian 
was free “either to employ both species or only one, or 
none at all.” The Calvinists accused the Catholic Church 
of mutilating the Sacrament, contemning Christ’s com- 
mand, and betraying the people. Calvin himself did not 
scruple to denounce the Catholic teaching of the validity of 
Communion under one kind as a diabolical invention.* 
_Utraquism is still a tenet of the Anglican Church, and is 
enumerated among the “ Plain Reasons Against Joining 
_ the Church of Rome” (London, 1880). 

In consequence of the Utraquist agitation, even Catholic 
nations began to demand Communion sub utraqgue, so 
that the German Emperor, with Charles IX of France 
_ and other rulers petitioned the Pope and the Council of 
Trent, which was just then in session, to allow the use 
of the Chalice in their dominions. 


2. THE CounciL oF TRENT.—The Council of 
Trent devoted an entire Session to this vexed 


3 See art. “ Unity of the Breth- cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 
ren” in the New Schaff-Herzog En- Vol. XI. 
4 Instit., IV, 17, 47. 


248 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


question and defined the Catholic teaching with- 


out regard to the noise created by the Utraquists. — 


Its principal canon on the subject is this: “If — 
anyone saith that by the precept of God, or by — 
necessity of salvation, all and each of the faith- — 
ful of Christ ought to receive both species of the | 
most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be 
anathema.” > — | 4 


Only towards the end of the Session did the Council — 
express its willingness to allow the use of the Chalice 
under certain conditions. Finally, in the last decree of 
its twenty-second Session, it referred the decision of the 
whole matter to the Pope. Pius IV, in 1564, authorized 
the bishops of Austria and Bavaria to permit the use of — 
the Chalice in their dioceses, provided certain conditions 
were fulfilled; but the people were so slow to avail them- 
selves of the privilege that it was soon after withdrawn. 
This was the end.of Communion under both kinds within — 
the pale of the Church.® | 


3. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINARY 
VARIATIONS.—It is impossible to prove from — 


Scripture that the laity or non-celebrating priests 4 | 
are bound to receive the Holy Eucharist under 


both kinds. 
under one kind has always been practiced within — 
the Catholic Church. 


Tradition shows that Communion 


5 Conc. Trident., Sess. XXI, can. 
ı: “Si quis dixerit, ex Dei prae- 
cepto vel necessitate salutis omnes 
et singulos Christi fideles utramque 
speciem SS. Eucharistiae sacra- 


menti sumere debere, anathema sit.” q 
(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 934). 


6 Cfr. Bossuet, Traité de la Com- 7 
munion sous les Deux Espéces, — 


Paris 1682. 


COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND 24 


a) The Utraquists based their contention prin- 
—cipally on John VI, 54: ‘Except you eat the flesh 
of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall 
not have life in you.” The Tridentine Council 
explains this text as follows: ‘He who said: 
‘Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and 
drink his blood, you shall not have life in you,’ 
(John VI, 54), also said: ‘He that eateth this 
bread shall live for ever’ (verse 59) ; and He who 
said: ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my 
blood hath everlasting life’ (verse 55), also said: 
‘The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life 
of the world’ (verse 52); and, in fine, He who 
said: ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my 
blood, abideth in me and I in him’ (verse 57), 
said nevertheless: ‘He that eateth this bread 
shall live forever’ (verse 59).” ' 


That Communion under one kind was customary in 
the Apostolic age may be deduced with great probability 
from Acts II, 42: “ And they were persevering in the 
doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communication of the 
breaking of bread, and in prayers.” ® 


b) A very strong argument can be construed 
from Tradition. | 


a) In the early days the faithful were accustomed to 
take the Holy Eucharist home in a wooden receptacle 


7Sess. XXI, cap. 1 (Denzinger- et communicatione fractionis panis 
Bannwart, n. 930). (rH xAdeoeı TOU Ääprov) et orationi- 
8 Act. II, 42: “ Erant autem per- bus.”— On 1 Cor. XI, 27 sqq., wv. 
severantes in doctrina Apostolorum supra, p. 94. On the text Matth. 


250. THE’ EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 
(arca lignea), in order that they might communicate \ 
themselves privately from time to time. Tertullian makes — 
_ this custom the basis of an argument, addressed to his q 
wife, against her marrying an infidel in case of — 
his own death. His point is that it will be impossible — 
for her to get the pagan husband’s permission to take 
holy Communion at home. -“ Will he not know,” says — 
Tertullian, “ what you take secretly before all other food, — 
and seeing it to be bread, will he not believe it to be that — 
which it is said to be [i. e. the Body of Christ]?”® St. ° 
Basil is authority for the statement that, when the per- _ 
secutions had ceased, in the fourth century, the custom 
of taking home a portion of the consecrated bread for — 
_ private Communion continued to be general in Alexandria 
and Egypt." 

As far back as the third century Communion was given — 
to the sick under one kind only. St. Denis tells of achild 
bringing Communion to an old man on his death-bed.1t _ 
Paulinus writes that St. Ambrose “received the Lord’s — 
Body and died after swallowing it, taking the good viat- 
icum with him.”** The Eleventh Council of Toledo — 
(A. D. 675) permits the sick who cannot swallow the 


Sacred Host to receive Communion under the form of 


wine. Children also were generally given holy Com- 
munion under the species of wine alone, sometimes under 
the species of bread alone.”? | 

The so-called Mass of the Presanctified, which is con- 7 


XXVI, 27: “ Bibite ex hoc omnes,’ esse credet, quid dicitur [scil. corpus 


of which the Lutherans and Calvin- 
ists make so much, see Bellarmine, 
De Eucharistia, IV, 25. 

9 Ad Uxorem, Il, 5 (Migne, P. L., 
I, 1296): “Non sciet maritus quid 
secreto ante omnem cibum gustes, et 
si sciverit esse panem, non illum 


Christi]? ” 5 
10 St. Basil, Ep. 93 ad Cesariam — 
(Migne, P. G., XXXII, 483). 
11 Cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., 
VI, 44. 
12 De Vita S. Ambrosii, n. 47. 
13 Cfr. St. Cyprian, De Lapsis, c. — 
25 (ed. Hartel, Vol. I, p. 255). a 


COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND 251 
fined to Good Friday in the West, in the East was and still 
is celebrated all through Lent, except on Saturdays, Sun- 
days, and the Feast of the Annunciation. During this cer- 
emony the officiating priest as well as the people, ac- 
cording to the ancient Roman Ordo, communicated under 
one kind, 7. e. bread.*# 

ß) An event which happened in the pontificate of Pope 
Gelasius has furnished a favorite argument to Protestant 
controversialists ever since Chemnitz. A recent writer 
refers to it as follows: “ Depriving the laity of the 
Chalice, a practice which Pope Gelasius (+ 496) had 
declared to be sacrilegious, first began in the twelfth cen-_ 
tury and was later justified by scholastic subtleties.” 5 
Under Pope Gelasius there lived in Rome many uncon- 
verted Manichzans, who at public worship took only the 
Sacred Host and refused the Chalice. To unmask these 
hypocrites the Pontiff ordained that at public Communion 
all the faithful without exception should communicate 
under both kinds. Evidently, before this papal decree 
was issued, there was no law compelling the laity to take 
the Chalice, and Communion under the species of bread 
alone was the common practice."* The usage inaugu- 
rated by Pope Gelasius prevailed up to the twelfth cen- 
‘tury, when the laity was gradually restricted to one 
kind.’ 


c) A theological argument for our thesis 
may be drawn from the totality of the Real Pres- 
ence under either kind." 


14 Migne, P, L., LXXVIII, 954. 

15 Luthardt, Apologet. Vorträge, 
Leipzig 1874. 

16 Other examples in De Augu- 
stinis, De Re Sacrament., Vol. I, 
2nd ed., pp. 677 saq. 

17 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 


aa, qu. 80, art. r2.— On the whole 
subject-matter of this subdivision 
see Funk, “Der Kommunionritus,” 
in Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlun- 
gen und Untersuchungen, Vol. I, pp. 
293 sqq., Paderborn 1897. 

18V. supra, pp. 93 sag. 


252 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


He who communicates under the species of bread alone, 
truly receives the Flesh and Blood of Christ, 7. e. the living 
Christ whole and entire, with Body and Soul, Divinity and 
Humanity, and together with the whole Sacrament, all 
the graces necessary for salvation.?® 

It has been objected that the faithful, by being denied 
the Chalice, are defrauded of a part of the essential fruits 

. of the Eucharist. The reception of the Precious Blood 
might produce a further increase of sanctifying grace if 
it were preceded by a new act of devotion and prepara- 
tion. But whether it would produce this effect without 
any change in the disposition of the recipient, purely er 
opere operato, is disputed among theologians. St. 
Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, Suarez, and many 
other eminent divines hold that the Chalice per se no 
more confers a larger measure of sanctifying grace than a 
would the taking of two separate Hosts at the same Mass. ~ 
De Lugo defends the contrary opinion.?® BE 

That the Church was moved by “ weighty and just rea- 
sons ” when she approved of the custom of communicat- 
ing under one species, is expressly affirmed by the Council 

-of Trent.?! These reasons are given by St. Thomas” — 
as follows: (1) the difficulty of providing the requisite — : 
number of sacred vessels; (2) the danger of spilling the 
Precious Blood, save in very small and select congrega- 
tions; and (3) the danger of giving rise to false opinions. 

19 Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXT, cam non iustis causis et rationibus — 
cap. 3: “. .. quod ad fructum at- adductam fuisse, ut laicos atque 


tinet, nulla gratis necessarid ad etiam clericos non conficientes sub a 
salutem eos defraudari; qui unam  panis tantummodo specie communi- — 


speciem solam accipiunt.” (Den- caret, aut in eo errasse, anathema — 
zinger-Bannwart, n. 932). sit.’ (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 935). a 

20 De Eucharistia, disp. 12, sect. 22 Opusc., 27, De Sacramento Al- — 
3 taris, c. 29 (ed. M. de Maria, S. J., 


21 Sess. XXI, can. 2: “Si quis t. III, p. 548, Tiferni Tiberini a 
dixerit, sanctam Ecclesiam catholi- 1886). a 


THE MINISTER 253 


To these reasons Charlier de Gerson, the distinguished 
theologian who in the early fifteenth century was so 
prominent a figure at the Council of Constance, in 
a little dissertation which was read before the Fathers 
of the Council, added a number of others, to wit: The 
danger of soiling the sacred vessels; the inconvenience 
arising from long beards; the difficulty of keeping the 
Precious Blood reserved for the sick from fermenting 
and spoiling; the difficulty of providing vessels large 
enough to hold the quantity of Blood required at paschal 
time and other occasions when thousands of persons 
approach the Holy Table; the impossibility of obtaining 
wine in poor countries and of providing enough of it 
where it is very dear; the danger of the wine freezing 
in northern countries, etc.?? 

Father Sydney F. Smith, S. J., who discusses these 
reasons at some length in a recent brochure, adds: 
“Also... the people, in these days particularly, might 
find it hard indeed to drink out of the same chalice as 
many others, some of whom might be conveying infection 
through the touch of their lips. Indeed, a correspondence 
in the columns of the Times and Church Times during 
the months of July and August, 1911, has called public 
attention to the large number of Anglicans who stay 
away from their Communion for fear of drinking from 
a chalice which may have been touched by infected lips, 
or resort to strange and disedifying methods of avoiding 
the risk. This fear is doubtless exaggerated, but we 
cannot help feeling that it might spread among Catholics 
also in these days when so many have microbes on the 
brain, were we accustomed to receive under both 

23 The passage from Gerson is der One Kind, pp. 18 sq., London 


translated and commented upon by IQII. 
S. F. Smith, S. J., Communion un- 


254 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


kinds.” 24 In conclusion the writer touches upon a point | 
to which those who criticize the Catholic practice have 
probably not adverted: —‘ Great care has to be taken 
in the provision of wine so as to secure that it is un- 
adulterated. The wine merchant must be able to inspire a 
trust of himself into the clergy, and the manufacturer into 
the wine merchant. This acts as a limitation of the wine 2 
supply, which, under the intense pressure which a rever- 
sion to the old system would involve, would probably _ 
cause a crisis.” *° a 


Reapincs:— Jak. Hoffmann, Geschichte der Laienkommunion 
bis zum Tridentinum, Spires 1891—A. Knopfler, Die Kelch- — 
bewegung in Bayern unter Herzog Albrecht V., 2nd ed., Munich _ 
1887.— O’Kane, Notes on the Rubrics of the Roman Missal, — 
Dublin ı867.—Dublanchy in the Dict. de Théol. Catholique, 
Ill, 552 sqq.— P. J. Toner in the Catholic Encyclopedia, IV, 175 
sqq.— Sydney F. Smith, S. J., Communion under One Kind, Lon- 
don 1911. 


24 Smith, op. cit., Pe 23. 25 Op. cit., Pp. 23 ‘Sq. 


CHAPTER IV 


THE MINISTER OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST 


As we have already noted, the Eucharist is a 
permanent Sacrament, of which the consecration 
(confectio) and reception (susceptio) are sepa- 
rated from each other by an interval of time, and 
consequently there may be two ministers, vi2.: 
(1) the minister of consecration and (2) the min- 
ister of distribution. 


Wragg 


™ 


SECTION 1 


THE MINISTER OF CONSECRATION 


1, HERETICAL TEACHINGS vs. THE DOCTRINE _ 
OF THE CHURCH.—Aside from the Pepuzians, — 
Collyridians, and Montanists of the early Chris- — 
tian era, who attributed priestly powers to — 
women,! and the medieval Albigensians and — 
Waldenses, who held that every layman of up- 
right disposition can consecrate,” Martin Luther 
was the first to declare that every Christian is — 
a priest and qualified, as the duly pe 
representative of the faithful, to perform the Sac- — 
rament of the Eucharist.® 3 

Against these errors the Church upheld the 
ancient Catholic teaching that none but regularly © 
ordained priests possess the power of consecrat- _ 
ing. The Fourth Lateran Council defined 
against the Albigenses: “No one but the priest, — 
regularly ordained according to the keys of the 
Church, can perform this Sacrament.” * The 

1 Cfr. Epiphan., De Haer., 49, 79. 4Caput “ Firmiter”: “Hoc ui 
2 Cfr. the Professio fidei Walden- que sacramentum nemo potest 
sibus praescripta, reproduced by _conficere nisi sacerdos, qui rite fuerit — 
Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 424. ordinatus secundum . claves Ec. — 
3He based this teaching on ı clesiae.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, m 


Pet, LI, 5; 430). 
256 


THE MINISTER 257 


Council of Trent, in opposition to the teaching of 
Luther, not only confirmed the existence of 
a special priesthood;* but declared that “Christ 
instituted the Apostles priests and ordained that 
they and other priests should offer His own un) 
and Blood.” ® 

It follows that no one can consecrate bread 
and wine who has not, through the Sacrament of 
Holy Orders, received from the Church the 
power to offer up the Sacrifice of the Mass. To 
consecrate and to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass 
are reciprocal terms. 

2. PROOF FROM REVELATION.— To the category 
of sacerdotes belong only bishops (sacerdotes 
primi ordinis) and priests (sacerdotes secundi 
ordinis). Deacons, subdeacons, and laymen (a 
fortiori women) are excluded. That priests 


alone have the power to consecrate cannot per- 


haps be proved conclusively from Holy Scripture, 
but a convincing argument is supplied by Tradi- 
tion. 

a) An indirect argument may be construed 
from the Bible as follows: Only those can offer 
the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore 
convert bread and wine into the Body and Blood 
of Jesus Christ, to whom He said: “Do this for 


5 Sess. XXIII, can. 1. aut non ordinasse, ut ipsi aliique sa- 

6 Sess. XXII, can. 2: “Si quis cerdotes offerrent corpus et -san- 
dixerit, illis verbis: ‘Hoc facite in guinem suum, anathema sit.” 
meam commemorationem, Christum  (Denzinger-Bannwart, n, 949). 
non institnisse Apostolos sacerdotes, 


Fu 


258 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


a commemoration of me.” Now this command _ 
was given by our Divine Saviour, not to the — 
faithful in general, but to the Apostles and their 
successors, 1. e. the regularly ordained bishops — 
and .priests of the‘ Catholic Church. Conse- @ 
quently, only bishops and priests have the power — 
to consecrate. 1 


It is evident that Tradition has understood our Lord’s 
mandate in this sense and in no other. “By the words — 
“Do this in commemoration of me,’” says the Tridentine a 
Council, “ Christ commanded them [His Apostles] and — 
their successors in the priesthood to offer [His Body and _ 
Blood], even as the Catholic Church has always under- — 
stood and taught.”* Since the power of consecration and = 
that of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are essen- _ 
tially identical, we may cite in support of our thesis the — 
statement of St. Paul: “For every high priest is ap- — 
pointed to offer gifts and sacrifices.”® If only regularly — 
ordained priests can offer sacrifice, it follows that only — 
regularly ordained priests have the power to consecrate. — 


b) A careful study of Tradition reveals three — 
facts: (1) Bishops and priests were always — 
held to have the power of saying Mass and con- — 
secrating validly; (2) Deacons were never per- — 
mitted to say Mass or to consecrate; and (3) This — 
prerogative was a fortiori denied to clerics in 
minor orders and to the laity. - 


7 Sess. XXII, cap. 1: “Et eis- lica Ecclesia intellexit et docuit.” — 
dem [scil. Apostolis] eorumque suc- (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 938). 2 
cessoribus, ut offerrent, praecepit per 8Heb. VIII, 3: “ Omnis enim — 
haec verba: ‘Hoc facite in meam pontifex ad otherendum munera a 
commemorationem,’ uti semper catho- hostias constituitur.” 


THE MINISTER 259 

a) As regards the first point, we know from the writ- 
ings of St. Justin Martyr, Origen, St. Cyprian, St. John 
Chrysostom, and others,? that bishops and priests always ~ 
appeared as the properly qualified celebrants of the Eu- 
charistic Sacrifice, that the deacons assisted at this func- 
tion, while the laity participated therein in a merely 
passive manner. In times of persecution priests often 
entered prisons under the pretext of paying a visit 
to the inmates, in order to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice 
and to strengthen the future martyrs with the Viaticum. 

From the early days of the Church the bishop, in ad- 
ministering Holy Orders, employed a special formula to 
bestow upon the recipient the power of offering sacrifice 
and of consecrating. Inthe Latin Ordo this formula ran: 
“ Accipe potestatem offerendi in Ecclesia sacrificium tam 
pro vivis quam pro defunctis.” 

ß) That deacons were always excluded from this 
function is evident from a decree of the First Ecumenical 
Council of Nicza (325) forbidding priests to receive 
Communion at the hands of deacons, because it is 
“against discipline and custom ” that clerics who lack the 
power to offer should administer the Holy Eucharist to 
those who possess that power.!® 

The Luciferians, among whom there were no bishops 
or priests, were told by St. Jerome (+ 420) that for want 
of celebrants they had neither a sacrifice nor the Eu- 
charist.™ ) 


9 See the collection of Patristic 
texts in Billuart, De Eucharistia, 
diss. 7, art. ı, and in De Augustinis, 
De Re Sacrament., Vol. I, 2nd ed., 
pp. 659 sqq. 

10 Nicaen. I, can. 18: “ Nec 
regula nec consuetudo tradit, ut ab 
his, qui potestatem non habent 
oferendi [i e. diaconi], ili qui 


offerunt [i. e. presbyteri] corpus 
Christi accipiant (ovtre 6 Kavov 
ovTe N ovvndeıa mapédwke Tovs 
éfouciay un Exovras mpoapépery 
Tois mpoopépovor Siddvat TO sama 
Tov Xpicrov).” 

1 Dial. “adv. Lneifer.,. n. 21: 
“ Hilarius [the founder of the Luci- 
ferian sect] guum diaconus de Ec- 


260 “THE EUCHARIST ASA SACRAMENT 


y) From what we have said it is clear that the Church 7 
has always denied to the laity the power to conse- 
crate. St. Epiphanius (+ 403) charges an ex- -monk, 
Zacheus, with committing a crime because, being a mere | 
layman, he had attempted to say Mass.” The Arians — 
who had accused St. Athanasius (+ 373) of sacrilege 
because supposedly at his bidding the consecrated chalice — 
had been demolished during a Mass celebrated by a cer- 
tain Ischyras, withdrew the charge when it was ascer- 
tained that Ischyras had been invalidly ordained by a 
pseudo- -bishop.18 . 
clesia retesverit, ++. neque Eu- vata domo habitans, poculum my: 
charistiam conficere potest, episco- sticum habere non potuit.”— Against — 
pos et presbyteros non habens.” . the contention of Hugo Grotius, that — 

12 Expos. Fidei, c. 13: “Quum laymen, nay even women, can val- — 
esset laicus, attingere ac sacrificia idly consecrate in case of necessity — 
celebrare nefario ac temerario ausu (De Coenae Administratione, ubi — 
est aggressus.” Pastores desunt, 1637) see Petavius, 


13 They had reluctantly to admit, Diatribe de Potestate Consecrandi. 
“quum esset homo privatus in pri- 


SECTION 2 
THE MINISTER OF DISTRIBUTION 


The minister of distribution (minister distribuens) 
is he who gives the Sacred Species to the faithful. 
The Eucharist being a permanent Sacrament, any com- 
- municant who has the proper disposition can receive it 
_ validly, no matter from whose hands. Hence the ques- 
_ tion which concerns us here is one not of validity, but 
merely of the licitness of administration. 


1. THE PRIEST AS THE ORDINARY DISPENSER 
OF THE SACRAMENT.—Aside from cases of neces- 
sity, when the laity were allowed to give them- 
selves Holy Communion, the Church has always 
upheld it as an Apostolic rule that the Bread of 
Life should be dispensed only by the consecrated 
hand of the priest. 


That this exclusive prerogative of the priesthood is of 
divine right, theologians generally deduce from the man- 
date of Christ: “Do this for a commemoration of 
me.”! The deduction is confirmed by the Tridentine 
Council, which defines: “As to the reception of the 
Sacrament, it was always a custom in the Church of 
- God that laymen should receive the Communion from 

‘priests, but that priests, when celebrating, should com- 


1Cfr, Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 72, art. 1. 
261 


$ 


262 ©’ THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 
municate themselves,— which custom, as coming down: ; 
from an Apostolic tradition, ought with justice and reason — 
to be maintained.”? St. Thomas says that “ the dis- ~ 
pensing of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest for three E 
reasons. First, because . .. he consecrates in the per- : 
son of Christ,” and “ as the consecration of Christ’s Body F 
belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing — 
belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the ap-_ 
pointed intermediary between God and the people; hence — 
as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so — 
it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the peo- | 
ple. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this — 
Sacrament, only consecrated hands should touch — 
SR bye a 


2. THE DEACON As THE EXTRAORDINARY Dis- > 
PENSER OF THE SACRAMENT.— The deacon is by 
virtue of his order the extraordinary dispenser 
of the Sacrament of the Altar. This is evident 
from the primitive teaching and practice of the 
Church both in the East and in the West. The 
fact that the deacon is an extraordinary min-— 
ister, shows that he administers the Sacrament — 
not ex officio, but ex delegatione, 1. e. with the per- 
mission of the bishop or priest. If he distributes 
Communion without such permission, he becomes 2 
irregular. q 


2Sess. XIII, cap. 8: “In sacra- iure ac merito retineri ia 
mentali autem sumptione semper in (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 881). 
Ecclesia Dei mos fuit, ut laici a sa- 3 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. G2, art. Bu 
cerdotibus communionem acciperent, 3.—On the einer requisite of k 
sacerdotes autem celebrantes seipsos ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or at least 3 
communicarent, qui mos tamquam permission, see Suarez, De Eucha- — 
ex traditione apostolica descendens  ristia, disp. 72, sect. 2. 


THE MINISTER 263 


In the early Church the deacons took the Holy Eu- 
charist to those who were absent from divine service * 
and presented the Chalice to the laity during Mass.® As 
late as the thirteenth century, deacons were allowed to ad- 
minister the Chalice, but the Sacred Host only in cases of 
necessity, at the bidding of bishop or priest.® 

That the functions of the deacon with respect to the 
Holy Eucharist were always regarded as extraordinary 
and dependent on the permission of bishop or priest, 
may be seen from the so-called Apostolic Constitutions. 
In this compilation of ecclesiastical laws, which was long 
accepted as the work of the Apostles, but is now known to 
have been made in Syria at the end of the fourth or 
the beginning of the fifth century,” we read: “ The dea- 
con ... . does not baptize, nor offer ; but when the bishop 
or priest has offered [the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass], 
he [the deacon] gives to the people, not as a priest, but 
as one ministering to the priests.”® When Communion 
was no longer given to the laity under the species of wine, 
the deacon’s powers were restricted. According to a 
decision of the S. Congregation of Rites (Feb. 25, 
1777), which is still in force, the deacon may administer 
~ Communion in case of necessity, and with the permission 

of his bishop or pastor,— which permission, however, may 
be presumed where the necessity is urgent. 


4 (Cir, Justin Martyr, Apol., I, ec. P.-G., I, 1126): “ Diaconus.. . 


67. 
5 Cfr. Cyprian, De Lapsis, n. 17, 
Be 

6 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 82, art. 
3, ad 1: “... wt [diaconus] dis- 
penset sanguinem, non autem cor- 
pus nisi in necessitate, iubente epi- 
scopo vel presbytero.” 

7 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- 
trology, p. 350, Freiburg and St. 
Louis 1908. 

8 Const. Apost., VIII, 28 (Migne, 


non baptizat, non offert; ipse vero, 
quum episcopus vel presbyter obtu- 
lit, dat populo non tamquam sacer- 
dos, sed tamquam ministrans  sa- 
cerdotibus.’— In accordance with 
this is a decree attributed to the 
so-called fourth Council of Car- 
thage, A. D. 398 (can. 38), which 
says: “ Diaconus praesente pres- 
bytero Eucharistiam corporis Christi 
populo, si necessitas cogat, iussus 
erogat.” 


GHAPTER’Y. 


THE RECIPIENT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST 


In dealing with the recipient of the Holy 
Eucharist we must carefully distinguish between 
the two conditions of objective capacity (capacı- 
tas, aptitudo) and subjective worthiness (dignt- 
tas). The former alone belongs to dogmatics; 
the latter falls within the purview of moral and 
ascetic theology. 


264 


SECTION I 


OBJECTIVE CAPACITY 


We are here concerned solely with the sacra- 
mental reception of the Holy Eucharist, not with 
the purely physical act of eating and drinking the 
sacred species, which, per se, may be done by 
persons lacking the necessary moral aptitude. 

On the necessity of having the right intention 
enough has been said in treating the subject of 
intention generally in a previous volume of this 
series.’ 

a) The first requisite of capacity or aptitude 
is that the recipient be a human being. Christ 
instituted His Sacraments, and especially the 
Eucharistic food of souls, for men only, to the 
exclusion of angels and irrational animals. 


3? 


The expression “ Bread of Angels,” which is so often 
_applied to the Blessed Sacrament (it is taken from the 
Psalms) ? is a mere metaphor to indicate that the angels 
feast spiritually upon the God-man in the Beatific 
Vision, where He is not concealed under the sacramental 
veil.? 

1 Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, 8 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 
Vol. I, pp. 196 sqa. 34, 011.180, arte uz. 


2Ps, LXXVII, 25: ‘ Panem 
angelorum manducavit homo.’ 


265 


266 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 
b) The second requisite of capacity or aptitude 
for holy Communion is that the recipient be in 


the state of pilgrimage to the next life (in statu 
viatoris). 


We have already adverted to Rosmini’s untenable opin- 
ion that the Eucharist is miraculously supplied in the next 
world to children who have died without it* It 
would be equally absurd to give holy Communion to 
the dead,— a practice expressly forbidden by a council of 
Hippo in the fourth century, on the ground that corpses 
are no longer capable of eating.» Strangely enough, this 
abuse of giving Communion to the dead proved difficult 
to eradicate, as appears from the energetic measures 
taken against it by later synods, e. g. that of Auxerre, of 
578, and the Trullan Council of 692.° 


c) The third requisite is Baptism, which by 
its very concept is the “spiritual door” to all the 
means of grace administered by the Church. 


Were a Jew or a Mohammedan to receive the Sacred 
Host, he would experience none of the effects of the 
Sacrament er opere operato, even though he had put 
himself into the state of sanctifying grace by an act of 
perfect contrition." The catechumens in the ancient 
Church were strictly excluded from the Table of the 
Lord.® 


4V. supra, pp. 236 sq. 

5 Can. 4: “ Placuit ut corporibus 
defunctorum Eucharistia non de- 
tur; dictum est [enim] a Domino: 
‘ Accipite et edite,’ cadavera autem 
nec accipere possunt nec edere.” 

6 Cfr. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 
Vol. III, 2nd ed., p. 585, Freiburg 
1877. 

x 7 Baptismus flaminis.— V. -Pohle- 


Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 
243 sqq. 

8 On the capacity of baptized in- 
fants, v. supra, pp. 240 sq.; on that 
of maniacs, idiots, mental defectives, 
etc., cfr. Familler, Pastoral-Psy- 
chiatrie, pp. 165 sqq., Freiburg 
1898; see also St. Thomas, Summa 
Theol., 3a, qu. 80, art. 9. 


SECTION 2 


SUBJECTIVE WORTHINESS 


Basing its teaching on the Fathers, the Tri- 
dentine Council! distinguishes a threefold Com- 
munion: 

(1) Purely sacramental reception, that is, 
when the Eucharist is received in the state of 
mortal sin; 

(2) Purely spiritual reception, which consists 
in a desire to receive the Holy Eucharist; 

(3) Sacramental and spiritual reception by 
those who are in the state of grace and have the 
required disposition. 

It is only the last-mentioned kind of Com- 
munion that produces all the effects peculiar to 
the Sacrament. It alone can properly be called 
“worthy Communion.” 

a) Hence the first and chief condition of sub- 
jective worthiness is the state of sanctifying grace 
(status gratiae sanctificantis ). 


a) Whoever takes Holy Communion in the state of 
mortal sin, receives the Body and Blood of our Lord un- 
worthily and commits a sacrilege. 


1Sess, XIII, cap. 8. 
267 


268 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT 


Faith alone (fides informis), i. e. faith without the 
dispositions that must accompany it to effect justification, 
is not sufficient for a worthy reception of the Holy Eu- 
charist. This was expressly defined by the Tridentine 
Council against the Protestant Reformers: “If anyone 
saith that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for re- 
ceiving the Sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, let 
him be anathema.”? The same Council commands that 
whoever is guilty of mortal sin must cleanse his soul 
in the Sacrament of Penance before approaching the 
Holy Table: “And lest so great a Sacrament be re- 
ceived. unworthily, ... this holy Synod ordains and 
declares that sacramental confession, when a confessor 
may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand by 
those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, how 
contrite soever they may think themselves.” ® 

Unlike the law prescribing the state of grace for those 
who wish to communicate, the precept enjoining confes- 
sion is not of divine right, but purely ecclesiastical. | 

8) In estimating the guilt of unworthy Communion it 
is necessary to make a distinction. St. Thomas explains 
this with his wonted lucidity as follows: “One sin can 
be said to be graver than another in two ways: first of 
all essentially, second, accidentally. Essentially, in re- 
gard to its species, which is taken from its object; and so 
a sin is greater according as that against which it is com- 
mitted, is greater. And since Christ’s Godhead is greater 
than His humanity, and His humanity greater than the 


2Sess. XIII, can. 11: “Si quis twit atque declarat ipsa s. Synodus, 


direrit, solam fidem esse sufficientem _ 


praeparationem ad sumendum SS. 
Eucharistiae sacramentum, anathe- 
ma sit.” 
893). 

8 Tec: 
mentum indigne » « 


“Et ne tantum Sacra- 
. sumatur, sta- 


(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. ~ 


illis quos conscientia peccati mor- 
talis gravat, quantumcunque etiam 
se contritos existiment, habitä copia 
confessoris, mecessario praemitten- 
dam esse confessionem sacramenta- 
lem.” (Cfr. Sess. XIII, cap. 7). 


THE RECIPIENT 269 


Sacraments of His humanity, hence it is that those are 
the gravest sins which are committed against the God- 
head, such as unbelief and blasphemy. The second de- 
gree of gravity is held by those sins which are com- 
mitted against His humanity [such as the kiss of Judas 
or the crucifixion]. ... In the third place come sins 
committed against. the Sacraments, which belong to 
Christ’s humanity ; and after these are the other sins com- 
mitted against mere creatures.’* Unworthy Com- 
munion, being a sin against the greatest of the Sacra- 
ments, is no doubt a grave sacrilege; but it is by no means 
the most grievous sin that can be committed. Sins com- 
mitted against the Godhead of Christ and against His 
bodily humanity are objectively much more griev- 
ous. “ This sin,” says the Angelic Doctor, speaking 
of unworthy Communion, “is specifically graver 
than many others, yet it is not the gravest of them 
a, 2 

Regarding the matter from the subjective point of view, 
it is evident that the gravity of a sacrilegious Com- - 
munion varies in proportion to the malice actuating the 
unworthy recipient. No doubt one who tramples the 
Sacred Host under foot commits a more grievous sin 
than he who simply communicates in the state of mortal 
sin. And he who approaches this Sacrament unworthily 
out of malice, is guilty of a far greater crime than he who 
does so merely from weakness or fear of his sin being 
discovered. | 


b) The second requisite of worthy reception is 
that the recipient must, from the previous mid- 


4 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 80, art. multis alitis gravius secundum suam 
- speciem, non tamen omnium gravis- 


5 
BL. ¢.: “Hoc peccatum est simum.” 


270 : THE EUCHARIST ‘AS A SACRAMENT 


night, abstain from everything in the nature of 
food or drink (ceiunium naturale ).° 


This precept, which obliges under pain of mortal sin,’ 
is traced by St. Augustine to an Apostolic ordinance,® but 
this contention would be hard to prove. 

The reasons for the prohibition of food and drink be- 
fore Communion are stated as follows by St. Thomas: 
“First, ... that it [the Blessed Sacrament] may enter 
into a mouth not yet contaminated by any food or drink; 
secondly, because of its signification, 7. e., to give us to 
understand that Christ, who is the reality of this Sacra- 
ment, and His charity, ought to be first of all established 
in our hearts. ... . Thirdly, on account of the danger of 
vomiting and intemperance, which sometimes arise from 
over-indulgence in food... .”? 


c) In addition to the fast the Church demands 
a certain preparation. She does not, however, 
hold that; without such preparation, Communion 
would fail to work its effects or be unworthy. 
The only absolutely necessary condition of sub- 
jective worthiness is the state of sanctifying 
grace. 


There is no law compelling the faithful, under pain of 
mortal sin, to approach the Holy Table with a certain 
definite measure of devotion or previous preparation. 
Nevertheless, reverence compels us, under pain of venial 
sin, not to receive our Lord and Saviour without senti- 
ments of sincere devotion.'® 


6Cfr. Conc. Constantiense, Den- 8 Ep. 54 ad Ianuar., c. 6. 
zinger-Bannwart, n. 626. 9 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 80, art. 8. 
7 For exceptions to this rule see 10 Cfr. De Lugo, De Eucharistia, 


the text-books of moral and pastoral disp. 14, sect. 2, 3. 
theology. 


THECRECIRIENT 271 


To demand more than that would savor of undue rigor- ; 
ism. Pope Alexander VIII, Dec. 7, 1690, condemned the 
Jansenistic contention that no one should be admitted to 
. the Holy Table who has not made “ full reparation ” for 
his sins, and who is not yet filled with the “ purest love 
of God.” 3 | | 

The question whether the effects of this Sacrament are 
impeded by venial sin, is answered by St. Thomas as fol- 
lows: “ Venial sins can be regarded in two ways: first, as 
past, secondly, as in the act of being committed. Venial 
sins taken in the first sense do not in any way hinder the 
effect of this Sacrament. . . . Considered in the second 
sense, venial sins do not utterly hinder the effect of this 
Sacrament, but merely in part. For... the effect of 
this Sacrament is not only the obtaining of habitual grace 
or charity, but also a certain actual refreshment of 
spiritual sweetness, which is indeed hindered if anyone 
approach this Sacrament with mind distracted through 
venial sins; but the increase of habitual grace or of 
charity is not taken away.” * 


READINGS: —St. Thomas, Summa Theol. 3a, qu. 82.—P. 
Schanz, Die Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, § 35, Freiburg 
1893.— P. Morrisroe, art. “ Holy Communion,” in Vol. VII of the 
Catholic Encyclopedia, pp. 402 sq.— A. Devine, C. P., The Sacra- 
ments Explained, 3rd ed., pp. 217-249, London 1905. 


11V. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. of the Holy Eucharist the student 
1312 sq. may further consult P. Schanz, 

12 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 79, art. Die Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, 
8.— On the subject of the recipient § 35, Freiburg 1893. 


PART III 


THE HOLY EUCHARIST AS A 
SACRIFICE, OR THE MASS 


The Holy Eucharist as a Sacrifice opens up new 
points of view. Sacrament and Sacrifice are 
such thoroughly different things that some the- 
ologians treat the Mass separately in an entirely 
different connection. 


The Mass is indeed something essentially different from 
the Eucharist as a Sacrament. Wyclif, Luther, and other 
heretics retained the latter but repudiated the former. 

A Sacrament serves primarily for the sanctification of 
souls, whereas a Sacrifice has for its object to glorify 
God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation. 
The recipient of the one is man, of the other, God, 
Moreover, the two have distinct modes of being. The 
Eucharistic Sacrament is a permanent thing (res per- 
manens); the Mass is a transient act (actio transiens). 
Finally, the Sacrifice of the Mass requires the consecra- 
tion of two distinct elements (bread and wine), whereas 
the Sacrament of the Eucharist may be effected (though 
only per accidens) by the consecration of one element 
only. 

The word “ Missa,” according to some, is derived from 
the Hebrew NER, 1. e. portion, according to others from 


the Greek pious, 1. e. occlusion. Mittere in the sense of 
272 


THE BUCHARIST-AS A SAGRIEICE 2,223 
perficere, offerre sacrum, occurs in the writings of classi- 
cal authors. But it is more probable that the word 
Missa is a late Latin form of missio, as oblata from Ole 
latio, collecta from collectio, etc.* 

Missio may refer either to the divine mission of the 
Logos for the reconciliation of mankind,? or, by synec- 
doche, to the “ dismissal” of the catechumens in the 
primitive Church,’ which has left its traces in the “ Ite 
missa est.” The term Missa for the Sacrifice of the 
Altar probably came into common use in the Latin 
Church as early as the sixth or seventh century. In the 
East they have retained the older technical term “ Lit- 


urgy.”’ * 


The teaching of the Church on the Sacrifice of 
the Mass, as defined by the Council of Trent, may 
be treated in three chapters: 


I. The Existence of the Mass; 
II. The Nature of the Mass; 
III. The Causality of the Mass. 


GENERAL READINGS: St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 
 83.— Billuart, De Eucharistia, diss. 8 (ed. Lequette, Vol. VI, pp. 


1Cfr. Du Cange, Glossar, s. v. nung, Aschaffenburg 1873; Hz. 


“ Missa.” 

2It is thus explained by Rupert 
of Deutz, De Divin. Off., Il, 20. 

8 Cfr. Isid. Hispal., Etymol., VI, 
19, 4: “Missa tempore sacrificit 
est, quando catechumeni foras mit- 
tuntur... et inde Missa, quia sa- 
cramentis altaris interesse non pos- 


sunt, qui nondum vregenerati no- 
scuntur.”’ (Migne, P. L., LXXXII, 
252). 

4Cfr. H. Müller, Missa: Ur- 


sprung und Bedeutung der Benen- 


Loewy, Die mystischen Bezeichnun- 
gen Jesu Christi als Siloé, Schiloch 
und Piscis, insbesondere die  Be- 
zeichnung der christlichen. Opferfeier 
als Missa, Paderborn 1888; Kellner, 
Heortology, pp. 430 sqq., London 
1908; A. Fortescue, The Mass. A 
Study of the Roman Liturgy, 2nd 
ed., London 1913, pp. 399 sqq.; J. C. 
Hedley, The Holy Eucharist, new 
impression, London 1907, pp. 175 
sqq. 


274 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


531 sqq.).— Gregory of Valentia, De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio, 
Ingolstadt 1580.—*Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, V-VI (ed. Fevre, 
Vol. VI, pp. 296 sqq. Paris 1873). — Suarez, De Sacram. Eu- 
charist. et de Missae Sacrificio, ed. Paris 1861.— Vasquez, Com- 
ment. in S. Theol., Ill, disp. 230-231.—*De Lugo, De SS. Eu- 
charistia, disp. 19 sqq. (ed. Fournials, Vol. VI, pp. 233 sqq., 
Paris 1892).— Tanner, De SS. Missae Sacrificio, Ingolstadt 
1620.—Pasqualigo, De Sacrificio Novae Legis Quaest. Theo- 
logicae, Morales, Iuridicae, 2 vols., Lyons 1662.— Innocent III, 
De Sacro Altaris Mysterio (Migne, P. L., CCXXVII, 773 sqq.). 
— Benedict XIV, De SS. Missae Sacrificio (Migne, Theol. Curs. 
Complet., Vol. XXIII). 

Among modern writers: Phil. Hergenröther, Die Eucharistie 
als Opfer, Ratisbon 1868.— Breitenreicher, Die Sakramente und 
das hl. Messopfer, Schaffhausen 1869.— Holzwarth, Briefe über 
das hl. Messopfer, Mayence 1873.— Lambrecht, De SS. Missae 
Sacrificio, Louvain 1874.— Menne, Das allerheiligste Sakrament 
des Altars als Opfer, Paderborn 1876.— Eisenring, Das hl. 
Messopfer, Einsiedeln 1880.—*Stentrup, S. J., De Sacrificio Eu- 
charistiae, Innsbruck 1889.— Businger, Das unblutige Opfer des 
Neuen Bundes, Solothurn 1890.— Lohmann, Das Opfer des Neuen 
Bundes, and ed., Paderborn 1909.— Sauter, Das hl. Messopfer, 
3rd ed., Paderborn 1909.—*N. Gihr, Das hl. Messopfer, dog- 
matisch, liturgisch und aszetisch erklärt, 13th ed., Freiburg 1912; 
Eng. ed., The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; Dogmatically, Liturgi- 
cally and Ascetically Explained, 4th ed. St. Louis 1914. — 
Many, Praelectiones de Missa, Paris 1903.— Gavin, S. J., The 
Sacrifice of the Mass, London 1903.—G. Pierse, The Mass in 
the Infant Church, Dublin 1909.— Chas. C. Clarke, Handbook 
of the Divine Liturgy. A Brief Study of the Historical De- 
velopment of the Mass, London 1910.—D. Rock, Hierurgia; 
or, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Revised by W. H. James 
Weale, 4th ed., 2 vols., London 1900.—A Devine, The Sacra- 
ments Explained, 3rd ed., pp. 250 sqq. London 1905.—J. C. 
Hedley, The Holy Eucharist, pp. 147-253, New Impression, Lon- 
don 1907..—G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First 
Sir Centuries of the Church, pp. 62-134, St. Louis 1913.— Wil- 
helm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, znd 
ed., pp. 431-463, London 1901.— 5. J. Hunter, S. J., Outlines 
of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. III, pp. 275-296, London 1894.— L. 


THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 275 


Duchesne, Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution, tr. by 
M. L. McClure, pp. 46-227, London 1903.—A. Fortescue, The 
Mass; A Study of the Roman Liturgy, Second Impression, Lon- 
don 1913.—H. Lucas, Holy Mass. The Eucharistic Sacrifice and 
the Roman Liturgy, 2 vols., London 1t914.—W. J. Kelly, The 
Veiled Majesty of Jesus in the Eucharist, pp. 175 sqq., London 
ISOS bo 1, Cotten, = Sea, A\ Manual of the History of Dogmas, 
Vol. Il, St. Louis 1918, pp. 335 sqq. 


EN RL 


CHAPTER Je. 2, 
THE EXISTENCE OF THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THI 
i ST eM ASS ae 2 


Before proving that the Mass exists and is a 
true sacrifice, we must explain the notion of sacri-. 
NOEs os 1 2 


r 
. 
—_ 
276 
pl 
= £ 
4 
x ’ 5 
>. f 
pr EIERN fe 


SHG iON: 


THE NOTION OF SACRIFICE EXPLAINED 


ARTLICER 1 


DEFINITION OF SACRIFICE 


1. FIGURATIVE SACRIFICES—A “sacrifice,” 
generally speaking, is the offering of a gift to 
God (oblatio Dei facta). In this sense the term 
may be applied to anything that is offered to 
the Deity: prayer, obedience, mortification, a good 
intention, alms, etc. : | 


It is in this general sense that Holy Scripture says: 
“ He that doth mercy, offereth sacrifice.” * | 

The Protestant Reformers distorted the Bible when, 
on the strength of such a figurative use of the term as 
is found in the above quotation, they contended that the 
Mass is superfluous. Calvin, however, was honest 
enough to admit: “I do not understand by what reason- 
ing those are impelled who extend the word sacrifice to all 
religious ceremonies and actions.” * In matter of fact it 
is not at all difficult to show that Holy Scripture employs 
the term not only in a figurative but also in its strict sense. 

1Ecclus. XXXV, 4: “ Qui facit 2 Inst., IV, 8, $ 13: “Qui sacri- 
misericordiam, offert sacrihicium.”  ficii vocabulum ad ommes cerimoni- 
— On the history of the term “sac- as ei religiosas actiones extendunt, 


rifice” in English, see the Oxford qua ratione id faciant, non video.” 
New English Dictionary, Ss. ©. 


‚277 


278 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 
Metaphors like a “sacrifice of jubilation,” ? “the calves 
of our lips,” a “sacrifice of praise,” *— expressions 
which apply sacrificial terms to simple prayer,— would 
be meaningless were there not, or had there not been, a 
true and real sacrifice (hostia, 6voia). This appears all 
the more clearly from such comparisons as: “ Let my 
prayer be directed as incense in thy sight,’*® and such 
antitheses as: “Obedience is better than sacrifices; ” ® 
“If thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have 
given it: with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted: 
a sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit;”* “I desired 
mercy and not sacrifice.”® It will be noticed that these 
texts advert to the sacrificial intent which is essential to 
every true sacrifice, and without which no sacrifice has 
value in the eyes of God. This ethical aspect of sacri- 
fice is strongly emphasized by St. Augustine when he 
says: “A true sacrifice is every good work which, is 
performed in order that we may be in God by a holy as- 
sociation.” ® According to St. Thomas the sacrificial in- 
tent, as embodied in the spirit of prayer, is the essential 
thing.!° 

In a true sacrifice the sacrificial intent naturally does 
not embody itself in the rite, which can be performed 
mechanically, but in the purpose, which lifts the external 


8“ Hostia vociferationis.” (Ps. 8Osee VI, 6: “ Misericordiam 
XXVI, 6). volut et non sacrificium.” 

4“ Vituli labiorum.” (Osee XIV, 9De Civ. Dei, X, 6: “ Sacrifi- 
3).— Hostia laudis.” (Heb. XIII, cium verum est omne opus bonum, 
15), quod agitur, ut sanctä societate in- 

5 Ps. CXL, 2: “ Dirigatur oratio haereamus Deo.” 
mea sicut incensum in conspectu 10 Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 85, 
tuo.” art. 3, ad 2: “ Primum quidem est 


61 Kings XV, 22: ‘“ Melior est 
enim obedientia quam victimae.” 

7Ps. L, 18°sq.: “Si voluisses 
sacrihcium, dedissem utique, holocau- 
stis mon delectaberis: sacrificium 
Deo spiritus contribulatus.” 


bonum animae quod Deo offertur in- 
teriori quodam sacrificio per devo- 
tionem et orationem et alios huius- 
modi-interiores actus; et hoc est 
principale sacrihcium.” 


NOTION OF SACRIFICE 279 


offering into the spiritual sphere and therefore requires | ° 
an act of the intellect and the will. 


2. SACRIFICES IN THE TRUE AND PROPER 
SENSE OF THE TERM.—The definition of sacrifice 
(oblatio, mpoodopa) cannot be gained by a priors 
reasoning; it must be ascertained from the com- 
parative history of religions, and, principally, 
from Divine Revelation. A careful study of 
these sources shows that four constituent elements 
enter into the notion of sacrifice. ‘They are: 


(a) a sacrificial gift (res oblata) ; 

(b) asacrificing minister (minister legitimus ) ; 
(c) a sacrificial action (actıo sacrifica) ; 

(d) a sacrificial end or object (Anis sacrificu). 


a) The necessity of a sacrificial gift is apparent 
from the fact that there can be no offering with- 
out something that is offered (res oblata). 


In a true sacrifice, as opposed to figurative sacrifices, 
the gift must be a physical substance, that is to say, 
it must be something material and visible (e. g. an ani- 
mal, incense), which is withdrawn from profane use and 
dedicated in a special manner to God. Cfr. Heb. VIII, 
3: “Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and 
sacrifices: wherefore it is necessary that he also should 
have something to offer.” " 

But this is not sufficient. The tithe, the first-fruits, 
the votive gifts left at miraculous shrines, etc., are physi- 


11 Heb. VIII, 3: -“ Omnis enim hostias constituitur; unde necesse est 
pontifex ad offerendum munera et hunc habere aliquid quod offerat.’’ 


280 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


cal substances offered to God with a religious intent, but 
they are not sacrifices. Something more is required. 


b) The second requisite is the sacrificing min- 
ister (minister legitimus sacrificii), who is usu- 
ally called priest (sacerdos, ‘pe’s) , 


He must be a qualified person of the male sex. It is 
of the very notion of public sacrifice that it is offered in the 
name of the whole community, and no man can act as the 
representative of a community (family, tribe) unless he 
has been duly commissioned or called. Whatever may 
have been the condition of affairs in the state of the law 
of nature, it is certain that since the Mosaic legislation 
the exercise of sacrificial functions has been limited to 
certain authorized persons. The priests of the Old Law 
were the members of the tribe of Levi. Cfr. Heb. V, 
4: “Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, 
but he that is called by God, as Aaron was.” 22 When 
King Ozias presumed to offer sacrifices, the Levites re- 
proved him and he was struck with leprosy.? Christ 
Himself, the eternal and sole High Priest, did not exer- 
cise the sacerdotal ministry by an arrogation of author- 
ity, but in virtue of a divine call.“* He has commanded 
that the priests who represent Him should receive power 
and authority to offer up the Sacrifice of the New Law 
through the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Hence it is an 
axiom in the Catholic Church that there can be no priest 
without a sacrifice, and no priesthood without the Sacra- 
ment of Holy Orders. The Church is not empowered to 
institute sacrifices. All she has been commissioned to do 

12Heb. V, 4: “Nec quisquam 132 Par. XXVI, 18 sqaq. 
sumit sibi honorem [t e. sacerdotii], 14 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology, 


sed qui vocatur a Deo tamquam PP. 127 sqq. 
Aaron.’ (Cfr. Numb. III sqq.). 


NOTION :OF SACRIFICE 281 


is to renew and apply the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross 
in an unbloody manner to the end of time. 

A sacrifice must be offered up at a fixed place, called 
an altar (ara, altare). Such places are found early and in 
great number among the nations of antiquity. | 

The question suggests itself, in view of what we have 
said, whether a visible gift (e. g., a lamb or the first- 
fruits of the field), offered on a fixed altar by a regu- 
larly ordained priest, would be a true sacrifice. 

If God had instituted a sacrifice under this form, it 
would undoubtedly be a true sacrifice. Viewed in the 
light of Revelation, however, we find that such an of- 
fering would lack an essential constituent of a true sac- 
rifice, vig.: the sacrificial act. 


c) In the sacrificial act (actio sacrifica, actio 
sacrihcü) a sacrifice reaches its outward culmina- 
tion. Its essence consists in the external offering 
of the sacrificial gift, which, in turn, must be 
in some manner transformed, if not completely 
destroyed. The form of a sacrifice, therefore, 
lies not in the transformation (immutatio) or de- 
struction (destructio) of the sacrificial gift, but 
in its sacrificial offering, no matter how it may 
be transformed. 


a) The sacrificial oblation, consequently, is the physi- 
cal form, whereas the transformation of the gift is merely 
the materia proxima of the sacrifice. The former is the 
end and object, the latter a mere means to that end. 
The correctness of this view can be proved by a threefold 
argument. 

(1) Sacrificium comes from sacrum facere. In its ac- 


282. THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


tive sense it is synonymous with offerre (to offer). 
Hence to offer is not the same as to transform (immu- 
tare) or to destroy (destruere). Re 

(2) This conclusion is borne out by a study of the 
Mosaic rite. Under the law of Moses the victim was 
slain by laymen and temple servants, while the oblation 
of the blood (aspersio sanguinis) was a function reserved 
to the lawfully appointed priests. It follows that the 
slaying of the victim appertains merely to the matter of 
the sacrifice, whereas the oblation, which consists in the 
sprinkling of the blood (aspersio sanguinis), constitutes its 
essential form."® 

(3) The real form of the Sacrifice of the Cross did 
not consist in the slaying of Christ by His barbarous ex- 
ecutioners, nor in an imaginary self-destruction of the 
Divine Victim, but in His voluntary surrender of His 
Blood, shed by the hands of others, and in His offering — 
His life for the sins of the world. Consequently, the — 
oblation constitutes the essence of a sacrifice, whereas the 
destruction of the victim does not.!? 

ß) These arguments do not, however, decide the 
deeper question whether or not the transformation or, | 
more particularly, the destruction of the victim enters 
into the definition of a sacrifice a parte materiae. We 
have seen in a previous treatise 18 that the matter of a bi 
thing, both remote and proximate, may be as necessary to 
constitute its nature as the form. i 

There can be no doubt that the sacrificial gift must be 

15 Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, 17. Cr.) Hebi) AX, (age Be 
disp:)'73,,) Sect. 18; Spiritum Sanctum semetipsum obtu- 

16Cfr. P. Scholz, Die hl. Alter- lit (&avröv mpochveykev) immacula- 
tümer des Volkes Israel, Vol. II, tum Deo.’— Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, So 
pp. 134 sqq., Ratisbon 1868.—“ Ho- teriology, pp. 111 saq. 
stia quippe occiditur, ut oferatur,” 18 Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, 


says St. Gregory the Great (Hom. Vol. I, pp. 59 sqq., 107 sqq. 
in Ezech., X, 19). 


NOTION OF SACRIFICE 283 


in some manner transformed either before the sacrificial 
action or in the process of the same.’® Is this transfor- 
mation in the Mass duly accomplished by the Consecra- 
tion (sacratio, consecratio), which transfers the sacri- 
ficial gift from profane use to the exclusive service of 
God, or must there be, in addition, a real change (mutatio 
realis)? If there is need of a physical transformation, 
must it consist in an improvement of the gift (mutatio 
in melius) or may it consist in a deterioration or the de- 
struction thereof (mutatio in deterius s. destructio) ? 
The answer to these questions cannot be obtained by the 
a priori method. Had God so willed, a sacrifice could be 
consummated by the mere consecration or dedication of 
the sacrificial gift. But we know from Revelation that 
such was not His will. We know that the essence of 
sacrifice requires a real transformation of the res oblata. 
Holy Scripture does not tell us whether this transforma- 
tion must culminate in destruction. Catholic divines, 
since Bellarmine and Suarez, hold divergent views on this 
point. Scheeben?° has pointed out, and Fr. Renz ?} 
proved by a wealth of historical arguments, that the 
Fathers and the Scholastic theologians of the pre-Tri- 
dentine period did not demand the destruction of the 
victim. However, Bellarmine,?* Vasquez,?? De Lugo,?4 
and Franzelin °® insist on it. That the idea is recent, 


19Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa derived yagna= sacrifice, and yégya 


Theol., 3a, qu. 22, art. 2: “Sacri- =sacred (in the sense of &yıos). 
ficia proprie dicuntur, quando circa 20 Dogmatik, Vol. Ill, pp. 400 
res Deo oblaias aliquid fit, sicut  sqq., Freiburg 1882, 

quod animalia occidebantur et com- 21 Geschichte des Messopferbe- 
burebantur, quod panis frangitur et griffes, 2 vols., Freising 1901-03. 
comeditur et benedicitur. Et hoc 22 De Eucharistia, V, 2. 

ipsum nomen sonat; nam sacrificium 23 Comment. in -S. Theol., II, 
dieitur ex hoc quod homo facit ali- GISPN 220,10. 2, ‘ 

quid sacrum.”’— Hence the etymolo- 24 De Eucharistia, disp. 19, sect. 


gical equation dw = fio (suffio); in 1. 
Sanscrit: yag = to offer, whence are 25 De Eucharistia, P. II, thes. 16. 


204; : THE EUCHARIST wis A SAC RIBPICE: 


does not, of course, prove that it is false. The necessity 
of defending the Mass against the Protestant Reformers 
might have led to the discovery of a new element, which 
had been overlooked by the theologians of an earlier day. 
If we add to this that the idea of the complete destruction 
of the sacrificial victim is realized in a truly imposing man- 
ner both in the Mosaic rite and in the Sacrifice of the 
Cross,— though indeed only ratione materiae proximae, 
— we shall see how reasonable is the assumption that 
there must be some kind of destruction (and if it were 
only a self-abasement, or “ kenosis,” as modern writers 
might say), in the Sacrifice of the Mass. 

De Lugo, whose opinion has been popularized by more 
than one English writer, expressly admits that the de- 
struction of the sacrificial gift need not be physical but 
that the idea is sufficiently realized in an act which, ac- 
cording to human estimation, amounts to a certain “ ex- 
inanition ” or self-abasement.?° We mention this fact, 
not to prove the truth of De Lugo’s theory, but merely 
to show that it is not improbable, much less impossible. 


d) The object or end of the sacrifice (finis sa- 
crificu), as significant of its meaning, constitutes 
its “metaphysical form.” In all religions the es- 
sential idea of sacrifice is a complete surrender of 
the creature to God for the purpose of being 
united with Him. 


a) This surrender (oblatio, mpoobopa) can be regarded 
from a twofold point of view: (1) as an acknowledg- 
ment of God’s absolute dominion over man (agnitio su- 


26 De Eucharistia, disp. 19, sect. termino illius actionis, habeat statum 
5, n 65: “... ita ut ex vi sa- decliviorem et saltem humano modo 


crificationis hostia, prout est in  desierit.” 


NOTION OF SACRIFICE 285 
premi dominiüi) and (2) as man’s absolute subjection of 
himself under God (absoluta subiectio sub Deo). The 
former element embodies mainly the juridical, the latter 
the ethical element of sacrifice, 7. e. man’s own sanctifica- 
tion as a means of union with God. The two ideas are 
correlative and postulate each other. Both are based 
upon the consideration of God as the First Cause and 
Last End of the created universe.?7 

Hence the obvious inference that sacrifice is essen- 
tially an act of divine worship, as God is both the Creator 
and the final End of all things. To offer sacrifice to a 
creature would be idolatry.28 This was understood even 
by the heathen. St. Augustine remarks: “ Who ever 
thought of offering sacrifice, except to one whom he 
either knew or thought or imagined to be God?” 2° 

Now we are also able to understand why the gift of- 
fered as a sacrifice must not only be the property of him 
who offers it, but by a symbolic substitution vicariously 
represents man whole and entire, with body and soul, 
being and life, inasmuch as the sacrificing minister is 
aware of the absolute dependence upon the First Cause 
and the direction to the Final End of those for whom he 
offers sacrifice. This is the essential signification of every 
sacrifice. 


B) To the idea of a complete surrender to God 
as the essential note of sacrifice, there is added, 


27 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 
2a 22e, qu.185, ants. 20) on Oblatio 
sacrificii fit ad aliquid significandum. 
.. . Anima autem se offert Deo in 
sacrificium sicut principio suae crea- 
tionis et sicut fini suae beatifica- 


tionis.”” 
28Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa 
Theol., ta zae, qu..1ıo2, art.‘ 3: 


“Et quia pertinet ad rectam ordina- 
tionem mentis in Deum, ut mens hu- 
mana non recognoscat alium primum 


auctorem rerum msi solum Deum, 
neque in aliquo alio finem suum 
constituat, propter hoc prohibebatur 
in lege offerri sacrificium alicui al- 
tert nisi Deo secundum illud (Ex. 
XX ZO) i Ones immolat diis, oc- 
cidetur, praeterguam Domino soli.’ ” 

29. De Civ. Dei, X, 4: Outs 
sacrificandum censuit nisi ei, quem 
deum aut scivit aut putavit aut 
finxit? 7? 


285. THE EUCHARIST“AS AX SACKIFICE 


on the part of those who are in a state of sin, the 
desire for pardon and reconciliation. | 

This idea is based on the knowledge that sin is the 
greatest impediment to man’s union with God. All the 
sacrifices of which the Bible tells us, were offered in the 
state of sin, and consequently had for their object, in 
part at least, the pardon of sinners and their reconcilia- 
tion with God. Here, again, the idea of destruction 
plays an important part, in so far as man, conscious of 
his guilt and the penalty incurred thereby, prefers to 
offer such gifts as symbolize his own life, and destroys 
them by killing or burning. Cfr. Heb. IX, 22: “ With- 
out shedding of blood there is no remission.” *° 


Combining the four constituent ideas thus ex- 
plained, we may now define a sacrifice as “the ex- 
ternal offering of a sensible gift, which is de- 
stroyed, or at least submitted to an appropriate 
transformation, by an authorised minister, in 
recognition of God’s supreme dominion and in 
order to appease His anger.” 


In this definition the phrase “the external offering 
of a sensible gift” expresses the generic element which 


30 Heb. IX, 22: “ Sine sanguinis 
effusione non fit remissio.’’— Cfr. 
Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology, pp. 112 
Sqq-; Outram, De Sacrifictis, 
London 1672; J. Pohle, s. v. “* Sac- 
rifice,”’ in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 
Vol. XIII.— On the sacrifices of the 
pagans see Lasaulx, Die Sühnopfer 
der Griechen und Romer und thr 
Verhältnis zu dem einen auf Gol- 
gotha, Würzburg 1841; Schanz, s. v. 
“ Opfer” in the Kirchenlexikon, 2nd 
ed., Vol. IX.— On the controversy 


regarding the concept of sacrifice in 
the primitive Church, cfr. the Katho- 
lik, of Mayence, 1908, I, pp. 434 sqQ., 
II, 463 sqq.; 1909, I, pp. 125 sqq.; 
Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie, of 
Innsbruck, 1908, pp. 307 sqq.; Wie- 
land, Die Schrift ‘Mensa und Con- 
fessio’ und P. E. Dorsch, S. J., 
Munich 1908.— On the idea of sacri- 
fice in the Fathers, see G. Pierse, 
The Mass in the Infant Church, pp. 
37 sqq. 


DIVISION OF SACRIFICE 287 


a sacrifice has in common with other acts of divine wor- 
ship. The remainder sets forth the specific difference 
which distinguishes a sacrifice from all other religious 
offerings. | 


ITS TECH. END 


DIFFERENT KINDS OF SACRIFICE 


Sacrifices may be divided into four categories 
according to their object, their origin, their ma- 
terial, and the economy of grace to which they 
belong. 

I. THE OBJECT OF SACRIFICE.— The intrinsic 
and essential object of every sacrifice, as we have 
seen, is the acknowledgment of God’s supreme do- 
minion over His creatures. Besides this there is 
a secondary object, viz.: the appeasement of His 
wrath. This secondary object, though in itself 
purely accidental, has become inseparable from 
the notion of sacrifice in consequence of the Fall.’ 
_ The acknowledgment of God’s supreme domin- 

ion over His creatures culminates in adoration 
or worship (adoratio, latria, Aarpeia) ; the effort 
to appease His wrath, in contrite expiation for 
the purpose of obtaining pardon of sin ( propiti- 
atio). Hence the distinction between sacrifices 
of praise and sacrifices of propitiation (sacrificia 
latreutica et propitiatoria). And since man re- 
ceives from God many benefits, his sacrifices have 


1 Cfr. „Heb..X, 2\'saq: 


288 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


the additional purpose of thanksgiving and peti- 
tion (sacrificia eucharistica et impetratoria). 


The reason of this fourfold division, according to St. 
Thomas, is that “ man is under obligations to God, in the 
first place and mainly because of His majesty; secondly 
because of sins committed; thirdly, because of benefts 
received, and fourthly, because of benefits still ex- 
pected.”? These four objects must not, however, be 
conceived as separable from one another. There can be 
no sacrifice of thanksgiving and petition that is not at 
the same time a sacrifice of praise and propitiation. The 
specific name of each merely points to the purpose pre- 
dominating in the mind of the sacrificing minister. 


2, ORIGIN OF SACRIFICE.—To be valid, a sac- 
rifice must be legitimately instituted. It is not, 
however, necessary, that it be instituted exclu- 
sively by. God. 


“Generally speaking,” says St. Thomas, “the obliga- 
tion of sacrifice is derived from the natural law; and 
therefore all are agreed on this. But the determination 
‘of sacrifices is a matter of human or divine institution, 
and in this there is a difference of opinion.” *® Vasqttez * 
maintained against Suarez that under the law of nature 
sacrifices might conceivably be instituted by private in- 


“ Obligatio sacrificti 


2Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 102, art. 


art. 3, ad 10: “Est ratio huius 
ordinis, quia maxime obligatur homo 
Deo propter eius maiestatem, Se- 
cundo propter offensam commissam, 
tertio propter eius beneficia iam sus- 
cepta, quarto propter beneficia 
sperata.”’ 

3 Summa Theol., 2a z2ae, qu. 85, 


Teimackance 
in communi est de lege natural, et 
ideo in hoc omnes conveniunt. Sed 
determinatio sacrificiorum est ex in- 
stitutione humana vel divina, et ideo 
in hoc differunt.” 

4 Comment. in S. Theol., III, disp. 
220 Mer2e 


DIVISION ORV SACRIFICE. 289 


dividuals; but this contention was refuted by De Lugo.® | 
There can hardly be a doubt that the institution of sacri- 
fices, even in the state of nature, is reserved to author- 
ity. Upon this fact is based the division of sacrifices 
into arbitraria, 1. e. sacrifices instituted by purely human 
authority, and legalia, 1. e. sacrifices instituted by divine 
authority. Sacrifices of the first-mentioned kind were 
probably offered by the Patriarchs during the pre-Mosaic 
period, when there were as yet no sacrificia legalia and 
the offering of sacrifice was a duty imposed on the heads 
of families. By the written law of Moses Yahweh as- 
sumed control of the Jewish religion, prescribed the sac- 
rificial rites in detail, and selected the tribe of Levi as 
the sole representative of the Old Testament priesthood.® 
Sacrifices offered by others were invalid, and any one 
not of that tribe who presumed to offer sacrifice, was as 
“guilty ...as if he had shed blood,’ and condemned 
to “ perish from the midst of his people.” ? 


3. THE MATERIAL OF SACRIFICE.—In accord- 
ance with the material nature of the sacrificial 
gift, sacrifices are divided into bloody sacrifices 
(victima, hostia, %oia), libations (lubamen, o7ov- 
dciov), and immolations (immolatıo). 


The material of the bloody sacrifice belonged to the 
category of domestic animals, which were slaughtered 
and burnt, either wholly or in part. 

Libations, consisting of natural liquids such as wine 
and oil, were poured out before the altar. 

The material of an immolation (from mola,- sacrificial 

5 De Eucharistia, disp. 19, sect. 1, 6 Cire) Numba vill iisags: Deut: 


n. Io sqq. XVIII. 
7“ Ciry Bev. XVII, 225q0 x 


2903) LEIERBUCHARTSTIANSTASSACRTEICH 


flour) was chosen from solid or liquid articles of human 
food (incense, salt, etc.), and was always, at least par- 
tially, burned. 

The sacrificial rites differed widely among different 
nations. 

The most perfect, in fact the only true bloody sacri- 
fice, in matter as well as form, was that offered on the 
Cross by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who was 
both the sacrificing minister and the sacrificial lamb. 


4. PRE-MosAIc, Mosaic, AND CHRISTIAN SAC- 
RIFICES.— Ihe history of sacrifices, in revealed re- 
ligion, may be divided into three periods: (a) the 
Pre-Mosaic or Patriarchal (aetas patriarcharum 
s. legis naturae); (b) the Mosaic (aetas legis 
scriptae s. mosaica) ; and (c) the Christian (aetas 
legis evangelicae s. christiana). 


a) The sacrifice of the Patriarchal period, in its earli- 
est stage in Paradise, probably consisted in some ceremon- 
ial (latreutical) eating of fruit from the Tree of Life, 
which was a figure of holy Communion. The priest 
was Adam, the head of the family, not Eve, who was 
subject to her husband. After the fall of our first 
parents the sacrifices they offered to God took on a 
propitiatory character. ‘The first sacrifice expressly men- 
tioned in the Bible is that of: Cain and Abel, consist- 
ing of animals and fruits of the field. It is probable that 
during this early period the sacrificial rite was deter- 
mined entirely by the Patriarchs, who were the legitimate 
heads of their tribes, though some theologians hold that 
certain regulations had been handed down to them from 
primitive Revelation. 

: b) The sacrifices of the Mosaic period were partly 


DIVISION: OF SACRIFICE 291 
bloody and partly unbloody. The latter were merely - 
subsidiary food-offerings.® 

There were three kinds of bloody sacrifices: burnt of- 
ferings, peace offerings, and sin offerings. The burnt 
offering is called holocaust, because in it the whole vic- 
tim was made to ascend to God through fire in smoke 
and vapor. — 

The unbloody sacrifices consisted in the burning of 
vegetable substances (incense, flour, bread with salt) or 
the pouring out of fluids (wine and oil). 

Notable among the sacrifices of the Mosaic period 
were: the sin offering (sacrificium pro peccato, TO mepL 
dpaptias, or simply peccatum), the sacrifice of the daily 
lamb (iuge sacrificium), and that of the paschal lamb 
(agnus paschalis) .° | 

A most important function of the Mosaic sacrifice 
was to serve as a type or figure of the Sacrifice of the 
Cross. The entire Old Testament, as St. Paul tells us, 
was nothing but “a shadow of the good things to 
come.” 1° This is true in a special manner of the sacri- 
ficial system of the Jews, as the same Apostle explains.'! 
As the Levitic priesthood was a figure of the one High 
Priest, Jesus Christ, so the sacrifices of the Mosaic law 
were a shadow and a type of the one great Sacrifice of 
the Cross. Being in themselves imperfect and ineffica- 
cious, the sacrifices of the Levites could effect a legal 
“cleansing of the flesh,’ +? but no remission of sins."? 


8Cfr. Thalhofer, Die unblutigen Volkes Israel, Vol. II, Ratisbon 
Opfer des mosaischen Kultus, Ra- 1868, 
tisbon 1848. 10, Feb. Kerr Canton lene. NT = 
9De Lugo (De Euch., disp. 19, turorum (oKim... TWH pedrOD- 
sect. 1, n. 9) denied that the “panes twy).” 


propositionis” were a true sacri- 
fice; but this assertion is untenable. 
Cfr. Scholz, Die hl. Altertümer des 


11 Heb. VIII-X. 

12 “ Emundatio carnis, ras capKos 
Kabaporns.” 

13 “ Remissio, ddeots.” 


202°) THE BUCHARIST (AS A SACRTEICE 


Their very insufficiency made them prophetic types of 
the perfect sacrifice of the New Law. If sins were for- 
given in the Old Testament, it was not by the blood of 
goats or calves, but by the blood of the promised Re- 
deemer. Hence the variety of the Levitic sacrifices and 
their constant repetition. They were mere types ex- 
pressing the constant need of propitiation through the 
bloody Sacrifice of the Cross.!* - 

It would not, however, be correct to say that the sacri- 
fices of the Mosaic law were merely typical, mystic, and 
relative. They had an absolute signification in them- 
selves in so far as they were true sacrifices, instituted 
for the purpose of worshipping God, appeasing His anger, 
giving Him thanks, and petitioning Him for further 
blessings.'? 


c) Christianity knows but one sacrifice, the 
bloody sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ on the 
Cross and daily repeated in an unbloody manner 
on our altars. 


The Mass is not an independent sacrifice offered by 
Christ. Nor is it a complement and consummation of 
the Sacrifice of the Cross. It is merely the unbloody 
representation and application of the latter, to be con- 
tinued to the end of time. Both in regard to the sacri- 
ficial gift and the sacrificing minister, the Mass is essen- 
tially identical with the Sacrifice of the Cross. The 
only difference between them lies in the manner of of- 


14 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology, literalem, secundum quod ordina- 


PP. 117 sq. bantur ad cultum Dei, aliam vero 

15 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa figuralem sive mysticam, secundum 
Theol., ıa 2ae, qu. 102, art. 3: quod ordinabantur ad figurandum 
“Caerimoniae Veteris Legis dupli- Christum.” 


cem causam habebant: unam scil. 


DIVISIONV OR, SACRIFICE 293 


fering, which in the one is bloody and in the other un- | 
bloody.*® 

Protestants contend that Christianity has no sacrifices 
besides the one offered on Calvary. There are many 
reasons that speak against this contention. In the 
first place, there can be no true religion without a sacri- 
fice, and hence Christianity, being preéminently the re- 
ligion, must surely have a perennial sacrifice of its own. 
Again, the sacrifice of the Cross is truly a world-sacri- 
fice and as such does not belong exclusively to the Chris- 
tian Church. It was the sole legitimate sacrifice also of 
all religions of antiquity since the Fall. Yet the 
professors of the Christian faith, in order to be able to 
satisfy their duty of worshipping God, must have a per- 
manent sacrifice just as well as the Old Testament Jews. 
This craving of the heart, which has deeply imbedded 
itself in all religions, is not satisfied by the Sacrifice of 
the Cross, since that was offered “once for all” and in 
one place only. The Catholic Church, being “the mys- 
tical Christ,” must have a sacrifice of her own, because 
otherwise she could not fulfil her duty of worship- 
ping God in the most perfect manner possible. With- 
out a sacrifice the Christian cult would be inferior to 
the Levitic ceremonies of the Old Testament, nay even 
to the feeble manifestations of natural religion as prac- 
ticed before the Mosaic era.1? 

These considerations, drawn from reason, are con- 
firmed by Divine Revelation, which tells us positively 
that there is such a sacrifice and that it is to be found in 
the Mass. 


i@Y. infra, Ch.) 11, Sect. 1, pp. 331, sag: 
17 Cir. N. Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, pp. 79 sqq. 


204) “THE EUCHARISTADS-ASALRTEICE 


Reapincs:—A. Stöckl, Das Opfer nach seinem Wesen und 
seiner Geschichte, Mayence 1861.—W. Koppler, Priester und 
Opfergabe, Mayence 1886.—M. Becanus, De Triplici Sacrificio 
Naturae, Legis, Gratiae, (Opusc. II), Lyons 1631—G. Pierse, 
The Mass in the Infant Church, Dublin 1909— W. Humphrey, 
S. J.. The One Mediator, or Sacrifice and Sacraments, pp. 1-41, 
London, s. a—A. Devine, C. P., The Sacraments Explained, 3rd 
ed., pp. 250 sqq., London, 1905. 


SECHION 


THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS PROVED FROM 
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 


The Catholic dogma of the Mass is thus nega- 
tively defined by the Tridentine Council: “If 
anyone saith that in the Mass a true and proper 
sacrifice is not offered to God, or that to be offered 
is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat, 
let him be anathema.’’' The dogma can be con- 
vincingly demonstrated both from Scripture and 
Tradition. 


ARTIC T Bt 


THE OLD TESTAMENT 


The Old Testament contains many prophecies 
pointing to the Mass. They are recorded partly 
in words and partly in types. Chief among the 
former is the prophecy of Malachias; prominent 
among the latter is the sacrifice of Melchisedech. 

I. [HE PRopHEcY oF MALAcHIAs.— The best 
and clearest prediction concerning the Mass is un- 


tess XII], can. 72 ae ie mobis \ Chrishum ad manducandum 
dixerit, in Missa non oferri Deo dari, anathema sit.” (Denzinger- 
verum et proprium sacrificium aut Bannwart, n. 948). 
quod offerri non sit aliud quam 


295 


200) (TE HU CREAR ES TAN A ae RLFACE 


doubtedly that of Malachias. 
sage runs as follows: 

“I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of 
hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand. 
For from the rising of the sun even to the going 
down, my name is great among the gentiles, and 
in every place there is sacrifice, and there is of- 
fered to my name a clean oblation: for my name 
is great among the gentiles, saith the Lord of 
hosts.” * 

According to the Catholic interpretation, the 
prophet here foretells the everlasting sacrifice of 
the New Dispensation. The Mass, in the words 
of the Tridentine Fathers, “is indeed that clean 
oblation, which cannot be defiled by any un- 
worthiness or malice of those that offer [it]; 
which the Lord foretold by Malachias would be 
offered everywhere, clean to His name, which was 
to be great amongst the nations. .. .” ? 

Malachias in the passage quoted predicts two 
distinct events: (1) the abolition of all Levitical 
sacrifices, and (2) the institution of an entirely 
new sacrifice. The only new sacrifice that com- 


1 Mal. I, 10 sq.: “Non est mili 2 Cone. Trident., Sess. XXII, cap. 
voluntas in vobis, dicit Dominus ex- 1: ‘‘ Haec illa munda oblatio est, 


Its principal pas- 


ercituum: et munus non suscipiam 
de manu vestra. Ab ortu enim solis 
usque ad occasum, magnum est nomen 
meum in gentibus, et in omni loco 
sacrificatur, et offertur momini meo 
oblatio munda: quia magnum est 
nomen meum in gentibus, dicit 
Dominus exercituum.” 


quae nulla indignitate aut malitia 
offerentium inquinari potest, quam 
Dominus per Malachiam nomini suo, 


quod magnum futurum esset m 
gentibus, in omni loco mundam of- 
ferendam praedirit.” (Denzinger- 


Bannwart, n. 939). 


THE MASS IN THE 0. T. 207 


plies with the terms of this prediction is the Mass. 
Consequently Malachias foretold the Mass. 


a) The major premise is evident from the text and 
context. God through the mouth of the prophet accuses 
the Levitic priesthood of having despised His name by of- 
fering polluted bread and blind, lame, and sick animals 
upon His altar® Angrily He rejects the Levitical-sacri- 
fices altogether, declaring that they will be supplanted 
by a new and clean oblation, which is to be offered not 
only among the Jews, but likewise “ among the gentiles ” 
(1. e. heathen, non-Jews), and not only in one determined 
spot (Jerusalem), but “ in every place,” 7. e. throughout 
the world. 


b) The minor premise can be established by 
showing: («) that the sacrifice predicted by Mala- 
chias was to be instituted in the days of the Mes- 
siah; (8) that it was to bea real and true sacrifice, 
(y) not formally identical with the Sacrifice of 
the Cross. 


a) Though the Hebrew participles of the original can 
be translated by the present tense,* the mere universality 
of the new sacrifice is proof that the prophet beheld as 
present an event belonging to the future. Whenever Yah- 
weh speaks of His glorification by the “ heathen,’ ® He 
can, according to Old Testament usage, have in mind only 
the kingdom of the Messiah or the future Church of 


3 Mal. I, 7-8: “Ofertis super si offeratis claudum et languidum, 


altare meum panem pollutum, et 
dicitis: In quo polluimus te? In 
eo quod dicitis: Mensa Domini de- 
- specta est. Si offeratis caecum ad 
immolandum, nonne malum est? ei 


nonne malum est?” 

4 They are so translated in our 
English Bible. 

5'6Ir.. Ps. XX) 28s bX Xi To2Ts, 
<I,.9; XLIX, 6;°LX, 9;*Amos IX, 
I2 0 Mich, IV, 2, etc. ¥ 


268.2 “THE EUCHARIST Asan SAURTEICH 


Christ. Every other explanation is shattered by the 
text. Least of all could a new sacrifice in the time of 
Malachias himself be thought of. Nor could there be 
any idea of a sacrifice among the heathen of that time, 
as has been suggested; for the sacrifices of the heathen, 
associated as they are with idolatry and impurity, are 
essentially unclean ® and cannot claim to be regarded as 
sue sacrifices because they lack legitimate institution 
and other necessary attributes. Again, Malachias could 
not have meant a sacrifice among the dispersed Jews. 
For, apart from the fact that the existence of sacri- 
fices in the diaspora is rather problematic, if they did 
exist they were certainly not offered throughout the 
world and did not represent a clean and universal obla- 
tion in the sense indicated by the prophet. Consequently 
the reference is undoubtedly to some sacrifice of the fu- 
ture. What was this to be? Was it to be a future sac- 
rifice among genuine heathen, such as the Congo ne- 
groes? This is as impossible as in the case of other 
pagan forms of idolatry. Perhaps, then, it was to be a 
new and more perfect sacrifice among the Jews? This 
also is out of the question, for the new sacrifice is to be 
offered by a priesthood of other than Jewish origin, and, 
moreover, since the destruction of Jerusalem (A. D. 70), 
the whole system of Jewish sacrifices is irrevocably a thing 
of the past. 

ß) The Messianic sacrifice predicted by Malachias was 
to be a true sacrifice. Abolition and substitution must 
correspond, and, accordingly, the Old Testament sacri- 
fices cannot be supplanted by an unreal one, especially in 
view of the fact that the former were a type of the latter. 
The “good things to come” must have been at least as 


6 Cfr. 1 Cor. X, 20: “ Quae immolant gentes, daemoniis immolant.” 


THE MASS IN THE O. T. 299 


real as their “shadow.” Moreover, such figurative and 
unreal sacrifices as prayer, adoration, thanksgiving, etc., 
are far from being a “new” offering, for they are per- 
manent realities common to the sacrifices of both the 
Old and the New Law. Consequently, the opposition 
between old and new in the prophecy of Malachias must 
refer, not to the intrinsic aspects of the- sacrifice, but 
solely to its external rite. All doubt as to the correct 
interpretation of the passage is dispelled by the Hebrew 
text. The sacred writer employs no fewer than three 
distinctively sacerdotal expressions referring to the 
promised sacrifice, thus designedly doing away with the 
possibility of taking the term in the metaphorical sense.’ 
Especially important is the substantive nny, which, al- 


though originally the generic term for every sacrifice, 
was never used to indicate an unreal sacrifice (such as a 
prayer offering), but became the terminus technicus for 
an unbloody sacrifice in contradistinction to the bloody 
sacrifice, which is given the name of nats 

y) The sacrifice predicted by Malachias cannot be the 
Sacrifice of the Cross. The prophet employs the word 
minchah, which means an unbloody food-offering. The 
Sacrifice of the Cross, though a true sacrifice, was not an 
unbloody food-offering. The Sacrifice of the Cross was 
confined to Golgotha and the Jewish people, and hence 
was not a universal sacrifice in the sense of Malachias, 


In omni loco suffimentum in Piel; 45 in Piel and Hiphil, 
ae 


= partic. Hophal of = 
MDR x 3ER, and pM)Y%, never occur in Sacred 
sufhre, adolere, thurificare) nomini Wits 


Meds oblatum (an = partic. Ho- Scripture in the sense of. internal 
. bie 


3 sacrifice (e. g. prayer), but are al- 
phal of ws) =oferre, sacrificare) ways applied to liturgical sacrificess 

RY: ; 8 Cfr. Knabenbauer, Comment. in 
et [quidem] sacrificum mundum Proph. Minor., Vol. II, pp. 430 sqq., 
mind AMI): The words TOP Paris 1886, 


200, "THE: EUCHARIST; AS A SACRIFICE 


i. e. a sacrifice offered ‘‘ from the rising of the sun to the 
going down” and “in every place.” Moreover, the 
Sacrifice of the Cross, which was accomplished by the 
Saviour in person, without the help of a human priest- 
hood, cannot be identified with a sacrifice for the offer- 
ing of which the Messias employs priests after the man- 
ner of the Levites. In the Mass alone is the prophecy 
of Malachias fulfilled to the letter. In it are united all 
the characteristics of the promised new sacrifice: its 
universality in regard to place and time, its extension to 
all nations, its unbloody sacrificial rite, its delegated 
priesthood differing from that of the Jews, its power to 
glorify the name of God throughout the world, its in- 
trinsic dignity and essential purity which no Levitical or 
moral uncleanness can defile. This is the unanimous 
teaching of the Fathers.® Cornelius & Lapide is so im- 
pressed with their unanimity that he confidently says: 
“Tt is of faith that this clean oblation [of Malachias] is 
the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in the 
Holy Eucharist.” * 


c) This argument is supported by other pro- 
phetic references to the Mass in the Old Testa- 
ment, e. g. Psalm XXI and Isaias’ prediction of 
a non-Jewish priesthood for the kingdom of the 
future Messias. 


a) The Messianic character of Psalm XXI (“ Deus, 
Deus meus, respice in me”) is evident from Matth. 


9 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, On the prophecy of Malachias the 
V, 10; Petavius, De Incarnatione, student may profitably consult 
Ki 12. Franzelin, De Eucharistia, P. II, 

10“ De fide esse, hanc oblationem thes. 10; Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dog- 
mundam esse sacrificium corporis et mat.,.Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 388 sqq.3 
sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia.”— D. Rock, Hierurgia; or, The Holy | 


THE MASS IN THE O. T. 301 


XXVII, 46; Mark XV, 34; John XIX, 24; Heb. II, a1 
sq. After describing His suffering on the Cross,!! the 
Messias goes on to show what blessings His Passion 
will bring upon the whole world. In thanksgiving: for 
His rescue from death (on the Last Day) He wishes to 
“pay his vows.” There follows the description of a 
meal in which not only “the poor shall eat and be filled,” 
but “the fat ones of the earth,” too, shall participate. 
Nay more, even the gentiles shall be benefited? This 
cannot possibly refer to the Sacrifice of the Cross; it 
must refer to the Mass.}% 

8) Isaias predicts the terrible judgment of God upon 
the Jews and the entrance of the heathen into the Mes- 
sianic Church. GirmisniX V1 18:84. 81 comethate | 
may gather them together with all nations and tongues: 
and they shall come and shall see my glory. And I will 
set a sign among them, and I will send of them that shall 
be saved to the gentiles into the sea, into Africa, and 
Lydia them that draw the bow: into Italy, and Greece, 
to the islands afar off, to them that have not heard of 
me, and have not seen my glory.” A characteristic of 
this new Church will be its non-Jewish priesthood. 
“ And I will take of them to be priests and Levites, saith 
the Lord.”** As priest and sacrifice are correlative 
terms, the new priesthood here prophesied implies an — 
equally permanent sacrifice, and this can only be the 
Mass." 


2, THE SACRIFICE OF MELCHISEDECH A TYPE 
OF THE Mass.—We read in the Book of Genesis: 


Sacrifice of the Mass, 4th ed., revised more detailed explanation of Ps. 
by W.‘H. J. Weale, Vol. I, pp. 183 XXI, see Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice 


sqq., London 1900, of the Mass, pp. 88 sqa. 
11 Ps. XXI, 1 sqq. 14 Is. LXVI, 21. 
VOR IX RT, 27: SqQ. 15: Cit Loi XIX, 192 


13 Cfr. Prov. IX; ı sqqi— For a 


302 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


“But Melchisedech, the king of Salem, bringing 
forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the 
most high God, blessed him [Abraham], .. . 
and [Abraham] gave him the tithes of all.” 1° 

This bringing forth of bread and wine on the 
part of Melchisedech was a true sacrifice, and it 
is on account of this sacrificial act that Melchise- 
dech is regarded as the prototype of Christ at the 
Last Supper. 


a) The Protestants (and some few Catholics) deny that 
the food-offering of Melchisedech was a true sacrifice. 
They claim that the verb ssn (Hiphil of NY, 7. e. of- 
ferebat) is not a hieratic sacrificial term. The King of 
Salem, they say, simply brought forth bread and wine to 
provide refreshment for Abraham and his warriors, who 
were wearied after battle. But this interpretation is 
untenable. In the first place, Abraham and his men 
were well supplied with provisions, for they had taken 
much booty,” and gave “tithes of all.” Moreover, it 
is evident from the context that proferre is here used 
in the sense of offerre. Melchisedech is not introduced 
as Abraham’s host, but as “the priest of the most high 
God,” and it is in this capacity that he “ brings forth 
bread and wine,” blesses Abraham, and receives tithes 
from him.* Melchisedech’s bringing forth bread and 
wine is stamped as a sacrifice by the fact that it is 
attributed to his priesthood: “ Erat enim sacerdos.” 
Had the sacred writer meant to explain Melchisedech’s 


16 Gen. XIV, 18 sqq.: “At vero Abrahae] .. . et [Abraham] dedit 
Melchisedech rex Salem, proferens ei decimas ex omnibus.” 
panem et vinum, erat enim sacerdos 17 Cfr. (Gen. XIV, 115216. 


Dei altissimi, benedixit ei [scil. 18 Cfr. Heb. VIII, 4 sqq. 


( 


Tote WA Sor TINERHEFOTE, 303. 
action rather than to give the reason for it, he would 
have said: “ Melchisedech, the king of Salem, who was 
a priest, brought forth bread and wine.” What he does 
say is: “ Melchisedech, the king of Salem, bringing forth 
bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high 
God, blessed him,” etc. The intermediate sentence, “ for 
he was the priest of the most high God,” clearly has 
reference, not only to’the subsequent acts of blessing 
and receiving the tithe, but mainly to the preceding sac- 
rifice of bread and wine. That the Masorites under- 
stood it thus is evident from the fact that they put a 
period (the so-called Soph-Pasuk) after the clause. 
Finally, though the verb NY) has several meanings, we 
are by no means certain that it was never used as a 
hieratic and sacrificial term; on the contrary, it seems to 
be so used in Judges VI, 18 sq.*® 


b) Sacred Scripture expressly teaches that 
Melchisedech, in his capacity of priest, was a pro- 
totype of Jesus Christ. In Psalm CIX we read: 
“Thou art a priest for ever according to the order 
of Melchisedech.” * St. Paul refers this directly 
toour Lord: ‘So Christ also did not glorify him- 
self, that he might be made a high priest: but he 
that said unto him: ‘Thou art my Son, this day 
have I begotten thee,’ as he saith also in another 
place: ‘Thou art a priest for ever, according to 
the order of Melchisedech.’” ?* Christ is here 


‚19% Judges VI, 18 sq.: “Depart it under the oak, and presented to 


not hence, till I return to thee, and him.” 
bring a sacrifice ( xy) ) and offer it 
TT 


to thee. ... And he carried (x) 


TT 


20 Tu es sacerdos in aeternum 
secundum ordinem (kara Thy 
Tae) Melchisedech.” 


21 Heb. V, 5 sq.: “Christus non 


304: - THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


declared to be not merely a priest like Melchise- 
dech, but “according to the order (kar& thy rééw) of 
Melchisedech.” Now Melchisedech, according to 
the “order” or rite employed, offered an unbloody 
sacrifice. Hence Christ, being a priest accord- 
ing to the same order, must also offer an unbloody 
sacrifice. Consequently, Christ resembles His 
priestly prototype not in His bloody Sacrifice on 
the Cross, but at the Last Supper, for it is 
there He made an unbloody food-offering,—only 
that, as antitype, He accomplished something 
more than a mere oblation of bread and wine, 
namely, the sacrifice of His Body and Blood un- 
der the species of bread and wine. And since 
He continues this unbloody sacrifice in the Mass 
and will continue it to the end of the world, He is 
“a priest forever according to the order of Mel- 
chisedech. 2° 


The question may be asked: Why does not St. Paul 
expressly draw this conclusion in his Epistle to the 
Hebrews? Why does he omit all mention there of the sac- 
rifice of Melchisedech and the Last Supper? Answer: 
Because this particular tertium comparationis does not 
fit into his argument. What he aims to show is 
Christ’s superiority as a priest over the Old Testament 
semetipsum clarificavit, ut pontifex 22 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucha- 
fieret, sed qui locutus est ad eum: ristia, V, 6; De Augustinis, De Re 
Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui Sacramentaria, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 
te; quemadmodum et in alio loco 724 sqq. 
dicit: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum 23° Heb, VII, <4 sqq. 


secundum ordinem Melchisedech.’”’ 
(Cfr. Heb. VII, 1 sqq.) 


THE NASS LN GCDE EN OFT. 305. 
Levites. To establish this he argues as follows: Mel- 
chisedech as a priest ranked higher than Aaron. Now 


Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech. 
Consequently Christ as a priest ranks higher than Aaron. 
The superiority of Melchisedech as a priest is manifested 
not so much by his sacrificing bread and wine (this had a 
parallel in the Levitic cult), as in the fact that he blessed 
Abraham and received tithes from him.?* 

The teaching of the Fathers is perfectly clear on this 
point. St. Cyprian says: “ What order, therefore, is 
this, coming from that sacrifice and going back to it, by 
which Melchisedech was a priest of the most high God, 
offered bread and wine, and blessed Abraham? For who 
is more a priest of the most high God, than our Lord 
Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, 
and offered the same that Melchisedech offered, namely, 
bread and wine, that is, His Body and Blood.” ? 

St. Augustine, in spite of the Discipline of the Secret 
still in force when he wrote, expresses himself with suffi- 
cient clearness on the same subject: “ They who read 
know what Melchisedech brought forth when he blessed 
Abraham, and they participate therein; [for] they behold 
such a sacrifice now being offered to God throughout the 
world.” ?¢ 


24 Heb. VII, 4. 

25:2 p. O34a0 Caecil,, n. 435 5.00 
es sacerdos, etc. Qui ordo utique 
hic est de sacrificio illo veniens et 
inde descendens, quod Melchisedech 
sacerdos Dei summi fuit, quod 
panem et vinum obtulit, quod Abra- 
ham benedixit. Nam quis magis 
sacerdos Dei summi, quam Dominus 
noster Iesus Christus, qui sacrificium 
Deo Patri obtulit et obtulit hoc idem, 
quod Melchisedech obtulerat, id est 
panem et vinum, suum scil. corpus 
et sanguinem.’— On St. Cyprian’s 


° 


- teaching, cfr. G. Pierse, The Mass 


in the Infant Church, pp. 86 sqq. 

26 Contra Adversar. Leg. et 
Prophet., I, 20: ‘‘ Noverunt, qui 
legunt quid protulerit Melchisedech, 
quando benedixit Abraham et iam 
sunt participes eius: vident tale 
sacrificium nunc offerri Deo toto 
orbe terrarum.’— Many other Pa- 
tristic passages are quoted by Bellar- 
mine, De Eucharistia, V, 6; see also 
J. Berington and J. Kirk, The Faith 
of Catholics on Certain Points of 
Controversy Confirmed by Scripture 


306 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


Without wishing to utter a final definition on the sub- 
ject, the Council of Trent 27 laid stress on the prophetical 
relation existing between the sacrifice of Melchisedech 

and the Last Supper.?® 


AR DICEE 2 


THE NEW TESTAMENT = 


The sacrificial character of the Mass can be 
most convincingly proved from the words which 
our Divine Saviour employed in consecrating the 
ae 

. PROOF OF THE SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER OF 
THE Mass FROM THE Worps EMPLOYED By 
CHRIST IN CONSECRATING THE CHALICE.— The 
words spoken by Jesus over the Chalice are re- 
ported as follows by the Evangelists and St. Paul: 


MAaATTH. XXVI, 28 


Tovro yap Eorıv TO aind pov TO THs Kawis duaßnkns TO epl 
TOAAGY Erxvvvonevov eis Geol änaprıov. 

Hic est enim sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro 
multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. 

For this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall ~ 
be shed for many unto remission of sins. 


and Attested by the Fathers, 3rd 
ed., Vol. II, pp. 418 sqq., London 
1846. 

27 Sess, XXII, cap. 1. 

28 On the Jewish tradition, cfr. P, 
Scholz, Die hl. Altertiimer des 
Volkes Israel, Vol. II, pp. 198 sqq., 
Ratisbon 1868.— On the Paschal 
Lamb (cfr. 1 Cor. V, 7 sqq.) as a 


type of the Mass, wv St. Thomas, 
Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 73, art. 6; 
Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, V, 7; 
Bickell, Messe und Pascha, Mayence 
1872; Von Cichowsky, Das alttesta- 
mentliche Pascha in seinem Verhält- 
nis zum Opfer Christi, Munich 
1849. 


THE MASS IN THE N. T. 307 


MARK XIV, 24 


Tovro Eorıv TO aipa pov tis Kawys SiaOyKyns TO Vrrep TOMY 
ERXUVVONEVOV. 

Hic est sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis 
effundetur. 

This is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be 
shed for many. 


LUKE XXII, 20 


Tovto 76 mornpiov % Kawn Siabykn ev TO atari pov TO Urep 
UMOV EKXUVVOMEVOV. 

Hic est caliv Novum Testamentum in sanguine meo, 
qui pro vobis fundetur. 

This is the chalice, the New Testament in my blood, 
which shall be shed for you. 


EGORLXT225 


Toro TO mornpıov 7 Kan duahnkn Eoriv Ev TO Euo alnarı. 
Hic calirx Novum Testamentum est in meo sanguine. 
_ This chalice is the New Testament in my blood. 


From these texts the divine institution of the 
Mass can be proved by showing: 

(1) That the shedding of blood took place at 
the Last Supper, and not for the first time on the 
Cross; 

(2) that it was a true sacrifice; 

(3) that it was to be a permanent institution 
in the Church. 

Let us consider these points one by one. 

(1) That Christ, when He spoke of shedding 


308: THE -EUCHARISTAAS A SACRIFICE 


His Blood, did not refer to the Sacrifice which 
He was about to offer on the Cross, but to the 
sacrifice He was then and there offering at the 
Last Supper, is evident from the following con- 
siderations: | 


a) The verb is used throughout in the form of the 
present participle, e«xuvvöuevov. If the Vulgate employs 
the future tense, it is no doubt to signify that the Sacrifice 
of the Last Supper is a merely relative sacrifice, based 
upon and intrinsically related to that of the Cross. 
Many ancient codices more correctly employ the present, 
“ effunditur.” + 

b) The Greek language hardly offers an example of 
the use of the present participle in a future sense, espe- 
cially when the finite verb is also used in the present, as 
here: otrd éorw . . . éxyvvvdpevor. 

c) It is a rule of New Testament Greek that when the 
present tense is used both in the participle and the finite 
verb, as is the case here, the time denoted is not the dis- 
tant or near future, but strictly the present. This rule 
does not apply to other constructions of the present tense, 
as when Christ says (John XIII, 27): “ That which 
thou dost (oes), do quickly,” or (John XIV, 12): “I 
go (mopevoua) to the Father.” That the participle 
épxopevos has a future meaning, is due to the notion ex- 
pressed therein of coming. Cir. James V,1: “ Miseriae — 
venturae (émepydpevar).” Matth. XX VI, 25: 6 rapadıdods 
aurov eimev, forms no exception, because 6 rapadıdovs is 
used substantively for “ traitor’ and the verb is not in 
the present. 

d) The above interpretation is rendered certain by the 


1 Cfr, Knabenbauer, Comment. in Maith., Vol, II, p. 424, Paris 1892. 


THE MASS ING Ti by Nut, 309, 


wording of St. Luke, who expressly speaks of the shed- 
ding of the blood as taking place in the Chalice, and not 
on the Cross. He does not say: Td rornpıov ev TO alnarı 
erxvwopevo, but: TS mornpıov ev TO alnarı TO ex xuvvönevov, — 
i. e. the Blood of Christ is shed for you in so far asitis 
present in the Chalice. Though the Blood in the Chalice 
was later also shed on the Cross, it would be inaccurate 
to say that the Chalice of the Blood was shed on the 
Cross as it was shed at the Last Supper. Since St. Luke; 
for such a good reason, refers the shedding of the Blood 
to the present, the participle éyvvvépevoy in the Gospels 
of SS. Matthew and Mark must also be interpreted 
strictly in the present tense. 


(2) Even those comparatively few Protestants 
who, like the Anglicans, hold that the Sacrifice 
of the Cross was a true sacrifice, readily admit 
that the phrase, “to shed one’s blood for others 
unto the remission of sins,’ is not only genuinely 
Biblical language relating to a sacrifice, but also 
designates in particular the sacrifice of expiation ; 
only they refer this sacrifice to what took place 
not at the Last Supper, but at the Crucifixion. 
We maintain that the shedding of Christ’s Blood 
in the Chalice is as truly a sacrifice as the shedding 
of it on the Cross, and that our Lord wished to sol- 
emnize the Last Supper not merely as a Sacra- 
ment, but also as a Eucharistic sacrifice. In 
other words, the effusio calicis signifies not 
merely a making present of the true Blood of 
Christ for the purpose of sacramental reception, 


31077 THE ‘EUCHARIST AS A» SACRIFICE 


but likewise a true, though unbloody offering 
thereof “for many unto remission of sins.” 
If the “pouring out of the Chalice” meant noth- 
ing more than the sacramental drinking of the 
Blood, we should have an intolerable tautology: 
“Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood, which 
is being drunk.” However, since the text reads: 
“Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood, which 
is shed for many unto remission of sins,” the 
double character of the rite as a Sacrament and 
as a Sacrifice is unmistakable. The Sacrament 
is shown forth in the “drinking,” the sacrifice in 
the “shedding of the blood.”2 The “Blood of 
the New Testament,” moreover, of which all four 
passages speak, has its exact parallel in the anal- 
ogous institution of the Old Testament through 
Moses.? 

(3) The Sacrifice of the Mass was intended to 
be a permanent institution in the Church. This 
is made evident by our Saviour’s command: 
“This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the 
commemoration of me.” 4 


The question arises: How can the Lord’s Blood be 
truly shed in the Chalice? Such an unbloody shedding 
of blood seems to involve a contradiction. 

It is possible and necessary to distinguish a twofold 

2 Ctr. Lev. WIE,” 7145, XIV; 375 18.— Maldonatus, Comment. in 
XVII, 11; Rom. III, 2s; V, 9; Matth., 26, 28. 

_Heb. IX, 10 sq.— See also Pohle- #1. CorUXT, sees: '“ Hoes facite 


Preuss, Soteriology, pp. 119 sqq. quotiescumque bibetis, in meam 
8 Cfr. Ex. XXIV, 8; Heb. IX, commemorationem.” 


THE MASS IN THE N. T. 311 


shedding of blood for sacrificial purposes,— the one real 
and physical, the other sacramental and mystical. The 
former took place in the bloody sacrifices of the Old 
Testament, and also in the Crucifixion, when the Precious 
Blood of our Saviour actually flowed from His veins and 
was separated from the Body. When we speak of the 
sacramental shedding of blood (effusio sanguinis sacra- 
~mentalis s. mystica) we mean that Christ offers His Blood 
for us in so far as it is represented as mystically separated 
from His Body. This mystic slaying of the Eucharistic 
Lamb is an imitation and sacramental representation of 
the physical killing on the Cross. It is in this sense that 
we must understand the famous saying that the double 
Consecration is a mystic sword which separates the Blood 
of Christ from His Body and thereby graphically repre- 
sents His death on the Cross. 


2. PROOF OF THE SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER OF 
THE Mass FROM THE CONSECRATION OF THE 
Breap.—As St. Matthew and St. Mark report 
the words “Hoc est corpus meunv’ without any 
addition, we have to depend entirely on St. Luke 
and the First Epistle to the Corinthians. These 
two texts read as follows: 


LUREXXIE 19: 
Tovro Eotı TO cGpd mov TO Urep Lpov dddpevoy, 
Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur. 
This is my body, which is given for you. 


312. THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


bOCORGM1 24: 
Tovro pov éo71 76 cdpa TO imép tpav (kAopevor ) ; 
Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. 
This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. 


a) The present participle déyevov, employed by 
St. Luke, which the Vulgate this time correctly» 
translates into the present (datur), strengthens 
the argument we have construed above from the 
Consecration of the Chalice. | 


The “giving of the body” plainly refers to the Eu- 
charistic Body of Christ present at the Last Supper, and 
not to His physical Body nailed to the Cross. 

The reading xAöuevov in St. Paul’s text is disputed. 
Tischendorf and Lachmann in their critical editions omit 
it altogether, and it is probable that St. Paul wrote: 
Tovro pod Eorı 76 copa TO isp indy. Since, however, the 
Apostle shortly before spoke of the “breaking of the 
bread,” ° and St. Chrysostom read xAduevov also in I Cor. 
XI, 24, there is good reason for regarding the word as 
Pauline, and we may argue as follows: The Biblical 
phrase “to break” (dav, frangere), when applied to food, 
means to give or offer as food. Now since the physical 
Body of Christ on the Cross was not allowed to be 
“ broken ” after the manner of the Paschal Lamb,°® and 
most certainly was not given or offered as food to be 
eaten, the word xAunevov cannot possibly refer to the Sac- 
rifice of the Cross, but must be applied to the giving of 
the Body at the Last Supper. 


a Reo Cor ARTE: "Aprov, dy 6 Ex. XII, 46; John XIX, 32 sqq. 
KAw@uer. 


a Ki 


- Paul: “Do this for a commemoration of me. 


THEY MASS ING TELE Nin 313 


b) The giving of the Body of Christ at the 
Last Supper was a true sacrificial act. 


Tradere s. dare corpus pro aliquo in Biblical usage is a 
distinctly sacrificial term.” Christ Himself employed it 
in the discourse in which He promised to institute the 
Holy Eucharist: “ The bread that I will give, is my 
flesh, for the life of the world.”® This excludes the as- 
sumption that the Last Supper was merely a “ giving” of 
Christ’s Flesh in holy Communion, i. e., a mere Sacra- 
ment. | 


c) The offering of the Eucharistic Body and 
Blood of Christ was to be a permanent institution 
in the Church,—the enduring Sacrifice of the New 
Covenant. This is evident from the Master’s 
command as recorded both by St. Luke and St. 


99 9 


Reischl, Bisping, Zill, and some other exegetes also 
quote in this connection Heb. XIII, 10: “ We have an 
altar (Qvovacrnpiov), whereof they have no power to eat 
(bayeiv) who serve the tabernacle,” arguing thereirom 
as follows: Where there is an altar, there must also bea | 
sacrifice. Now the only altar whereof Christians eat, is 
the altar of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Consequently there 
is a true Eucharistic Sacrifice. This interpretation fits in 
logically with the text of St. Paul’s letter and the ideas 
contained therein, but it is not entirely certain. St. 
Thomas, Estius, and others take the Pauline passage 


7Cfr. Rom. VII, 4; Col. I, 22; mundi vita (irép THs Tov Kéopov 


Hebi xaos 2. Pet. TEs 24) etc} {wns).” 
8 John Wil} BO EN SANS, 9 Buke XXTIL, 19:.12.Cor. X 124. 
quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro — On these two passages see Franze- 


lin, De Eucharistia, P. 2, thes. 11. 


314° THE EUCHARIST. AS’ A SACRIBICE 


figuratively and apply it to the Sacrifice of the Cross, 
“ We have the Sacrifice of the Cross, whereof they who 
serve the tabernacle have no power to eat in a spiritual 
manner.” 1° 


ARTICLE 3 


THE ARGUMENT FROM PRESCRIPTION 


The argument from prescription for the exist- 
ence of the Mass may be formulated as follows: 
A sacrificial rite in the Church which is older than 
the oldest attack made upon it by heretics, cannot 
possibly be “the work of men or devils,” but must 
have been instituted by Christ. Now the 
Church’s legitimate possession as regards the 
Mass can be traced back to the beginning of 
Christianity. It follows that the Mass was insti- 
tuted by Christ. 

Ihe major premise of this syllogism needs no 
proof. The minor must be demonstrated his- 
torically. 

I. SINCE THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.—For the 
last three centuries and a half the teaching of the 
Tridentine Council has been admittedly accepted 
throughout the Catholic Church. 


The Council devoted its entire twenty-second Session 
to the Sacrifice of the Mass. We shall give a résumé of 
the nine canons constituting this definition: 

10 Cfr. Thalhofer, Die Opfer des conversation with the Samaritan 
Hebräerbriefes, Dillingen ı855.— woman (John IV, 21 sqq.). On this 


An intimation of the Mass is seen subject see Bellarmine, De Eu- 
by many theologians in our Lord’s charistia, V. 11. 


ARGUMENT FROM PRESCRIPTION 315 


I. The Mass is a true and proper sacrifice. 

II. Christ instituted a special priesthood for its cele- 
bration. 

III. The Mass is not only a sacrifice of praise and 
thanksgiving, but also a propitiatory sacrifice that may be 
offered for the living and the dead. 

IV. The Sacrifice of the Mass casts no blasphemy on 
the Sacrifice of the Cross. 

V. To celebrate Mass in honor of the saints is not an 
imposture. 

VI. The canon of the Mass does not contain errors. 

VII. The ceremonies of the Mass are not an incentive 
to impiety, but a means of edification. 

VIII. Private Masses, wherein the priest alone com- 
municates sacramentally, are lawful. 

1X; The rite of) the Roman Church, with its | sılent 
prayers, its Latin language, its mixture of water with the 


. wine in the chalice before Consecration, is not to be con- 


demned. 

These dogmatic definitions palpably reflect a time when 
the enemies of the Church did not scruple to cover the 
most sacred things with the filth of their vile imagination. 
Psychologically, it is quite intelligible that men like Carl- 
stadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius should inveigh against 
altars as “impias lapidum congeries,’ for they rejected 
the dogma of the Real Presence. Calvin also was con- 
sistent with himself in reviling the ‘‘ Papistical Mass,” 
which the Catechism of Heidelberg characterized as 
“cursed idolatry.” But it is rather strange that Luther, 
in spite of his avowed belief in the Holy Eucharist, should 
have made common cause with the enemies of the Mass 
and, after a violent “nocturnal dispute with the devil,” 
lent his aid in abolishing it. Melanchthon, who was less 
radical and more wary, had no objection to letting the 


310. «IHR EUCHARIST ASIA SACRTEICE 

Mass go on asa sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but 
denied its propitiatory character. At the time of the Tri- 
dentine Council, the Mass seems to have been quite gen- 
erally abolished among Protestants.! 

The violence of the Reformers shows how deeply the 
Mass had taken röot in Christendom. Calvin’s declara- 
tion that the devil had deceived nearly the whole universe 
into believing in its sacrificial character,? is valid testi- 
mony to its existence at his time; so, too, is Luther’s 
complaint that the entire ritual of the Mass is saturated 
with the notion of sacrifice.’ 


2. THE Mippie Aces Since Puorrus,—This 
period, which extends from the year 869 to about 
1500, affords an abundance of testimonies for the 
existence of the Mass. 


Though a number of deplorable abuses originated in 
the course of this period, and continued well into the 
sixteenth century, the Mass itself was universally ac- 
knowledged in the Catholic Church as a divine institu- 
tion.* There were some heretical attacks made upon it in 
the twelfth century. Thus the Albigenses and Waldenses 
claimed that laymen had the power of offering sacrifice. 


1 The objections raised against it Opfer, was es ist... . Darum weg- 


by Luther, Calvin, and Chemnitz „geworfen alle Worte, die nach Opfer 
(Examen Conc. Trid., ed. Preuss, klingen, samt dem ganzen Kanon!” 
pp. 381 sqq., Berlin 1861) are 4Cfr. Ad. Franz, Die Messe im 


copiously refuted by Cardinal Bell- deutschen Mittelalter, Freiburg 


armine, De Eucharistia, V, 24-26. 

2 Instit, IV, .18: “ Pestilentis- 
simo errore Satan totum paene or- 
bem excaecavit, ut crederet Missam 
sacrificium,”’ 

3 Weise christliche Messen zu 
halten (1526): “Von dem Offer- 
torium an klingt und stinkt alles 


1892; J. H. Matthews, The Mass and 
its Folklore, pp. 11 sqq., London 
1903; T. E.... Bridgett, The Holy 
Eucharist in Great Britain, new ed., 
London 19055, 7.0]. | Carri’ The 
Blessed Eucharist: Belief of the 
Early English Church, Melbourne 


1915. 


ARGUMENT FROM PRESCRIPTION 317 


In the sixteenth century Wiclif attacked the dogma of the 
Real Presence. But it is none the less true that the 
Church succeeded in preserving belief in the Mass among 
the Christian populace. The Council of Constance 
(1414-18) condemned Wiclif’s assertion that the Mass 
cannot be proved from Scripture,’ quite as vigorously as 
the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) had rejected 
the heretical teaching of the Albigenses.° 

Taking a long step backward to the schism of Photius 
(869), we find that the Greek Church held fast to the 
Eucharistic Sacrifice as faithfully as the Latin. The 
schismatic Greeks showed in the negotiations for reunion 
at Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) that they had kept 
this precious heritage intact. The German Lutherans 
tried to induce them to give up the Mass; but their efforts 
in this direction were as fruitless as the repeated at- 
tempts of the Tübingen divines to persuade them to 
relinquish their belief in the seven Sacraments.” A 
schismatic council held at Jerusalem, A. D. 1672, refers to 
the Mass as a true sacrifice of propitiation offered for all 
the faithful, both living and dead.® From all of which it 
is clear that the Mass existed in both Churches long before 
Photius. 


3. THE PERIOD FROM A. D. 300 To 800.—Go- 
ing still farther back, we come upon the Nesto- 
rians and Monophysites. These heretics, who 
were driven out of the Church in the fifth century 


5“ Non est fundamentum in XI, p. 247: “ Incruentum vero tra- 
Evangelio, quod Christus Missam  didit sacrificium dicens: Accipite et 
_ ordinaverit.” (Denzinger-Bann- manducate, hoc est corpus 
wart, n. 585). meum’ ...(p. 254): “Verum ac 
6 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 430. propitiatorium esse sacrificium, quod 
7 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra- pro fidelibus omnibus tum vivis tum 
ments, Vol. I, p. 39. defunctis necnon pro utilitate 


8 Apud Hardouin, Concil., Vol. omnium offertur.” 


3184. THE -KUGCEARIST VAS Ay SACRIBICE 


(Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon, 451), have continued 
to the present day to celebrate in their solemn lit- 
urgy the Sacrifice of the Mass. 


The Mass was not introduced in the fifth century. 
This is evident from certain conciliary decrees issued at 
a still earlier date. Thus the Third Provincial Council 
of Carthage, in 397, ordained that “ nothing be offered in 
the Sacraments of the Lord’s Body and Blood except 
what the Lord Himself handed down, 7. e. bread and 
wine mixed with water.”® The first Nicene Council 
(325), in its celebrated eighteenth canon, forbade priests 
to receive the Eucharist from the hands of deacons, for 
the reason that “neither the canon nor custom have 
handed down to us, that those who have not the power to 
offer sacrifice (mpoodépev) may give Christ’s Body to 
those who offer (trois mpoobepovanv).” 

The Nicene Council speaks of a “ custom.” A custom 
of the fourth century must go back at least to the third, 
which brings us to the age of the catacombs. Even 
Harnack admits '° that the Eucharist was regarded as a 
true sacrifice in the time of St. Cyprian, who died in 258. 
Convincing evidence from those early days is furnished 
by Eucharistic pictures, vessels, missals, altars, etc.'! 


4. THe First THREE CENTURIES.—The most 
conclusive evidence for the existence of the Mass 


9 Cap. 24, apud Hardouin, Concil., see Pierse, The Mass in the Infant 
Vol. I, p. 963: *. .. ut in sacra- . Church, pp. 6-10, Dublin 1909. 
mentis corporis et sanguinis Domini 11 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucha- 
nihil amplius oferatur quam ipse vistia, VI, 14; Kraus, Realenzyklopé- 
Dominus tradidit, hoc est panis et die der christlichen Altertümer, 2 
vinum aqua mixtum,” vols., Freiburg 1879-86; Pierse, The 

10 Dogmengeschichte, Vol. I, 3rd Mass in the Infant Church, Sect. 
ed., pp. 428 sqq., Freiburg 1894. 2, pp. 108 sqq.; Barnes, The Early 
On Harnack’s teaching on this point Church, pp. 126 sqq., London 1913. 


| 


ARGUMENT FROM PRESCRIPTION 319 


in the early days of Christianity is furnished by 


the ancient liturgies. They reach back to the 
Apostolic age and give unadulterated and decisive 
expression to the sacrificial idea. ae 


a) According to the well-founded opinion of modern 
authorities, the liturgies of the East and West may all 
be traced to one archetype. This in its basic principles 
is contained in the eighth book of the so-called Apostolic 
Constitutions,!2— a collection which, though somewhat re-" 
touched: in its present form, was undoubtedly compiled 
in the first century. The liturgy of the Apostolic Con- 
stitutions agrees so perfectly with the description given 
by St. Clement of Rome in his epistle to the Corinthians, 
that it has been called the Clementine Liturgy.** Bickell 
does not hesitate to assert that in its essential character- 
istics this is the rite employed by Christ Himself at the 
Last Supper.** 

b) In the fourth century the parent liturgy developed 
into two great families, the Oriental and the Occidental. 
The Eastern family embraced principally the following: 

(1) The Liturgy of Jerusalem,” which, in the main, 
is represented in the fifth of the Catecheses Mystagogicae 

12 Apud Daniel, Cod. Lit., IV, kath. Theologie (Innsbruck), 1880, 
48 sqq., Leipsic 1853. pp. 90 sqq.; Ipem, Messe und 

13 See Thalhofer, Handbuch der Pascha, Mayence 1871.— Cfr. Drews, 


kath. Liturgik, 2nd ed. by L. Eisen- Untersuchungen über die sogen. 
hofer, Vol. II, p. 13, Freiburg 1912. klementinische Liturgie, Leipzig 


— For additional information on this 
topie consult Probst, Liturgie der 
ersten drei christlichen Jahrhunderte, 
Tübingen 1870; IpremM, Die ältesten 
römischen Sakramentarien, Münster 


-1892.— On the use of this Eastern 


liturgy in the West see Bickell in 
Kraus’ Realensyklopädie der christl. 
Altertümer, Vol. II, 310 sqq. 

14 Bickell in the Zeitschrift für 


1906.— On Probst’s theory and its 
modification by Kattenbusch and 
latterly by Drews, as well as on the 
subject of the Clementine liturgy 
in general, see A. Fortescue, The 
Mass, A Study of the Roman Lit- 
urgy, 2nd ed., London 1913, pp. 57 
sqq. 

15 Apud Daniel, Cod. Lit., IV, 88 
sqq. 


320°) THE EUCHARIST: AS:A SACRIFICE 


of St. Cyril (+ 386). It is often called the Liturgy of 
St. James.!® 

(2) Offshoots of the Liturgy of Jerusalem are the 
Liturgy of St. Basil (+ 379) in Cxsarea and of St. 
Chrysostom in Constantinople (++ 407), both of which 
are still used on certain festive occasions by the Greeks, 
and also, in an ancient Slavic translation, by the Rus- 
sians. 

(3) The Armenian Liturgy, which is closely related to 
that of:St. Basil: 

(4) The Alexandrian Liturgy, also called Liturgy of 
St. Mark, which forms the basis of the liturgy of the 
Copts and of the so-called Canon Universalis of the 
Abyssinians.27 

(5) The Chaldee Liturgy of the Apostles Addai and 
Mari," used by the Nestorians of Mesopotamia and re- 
markable for the fact that it does not contain the words 
of institution. On certain days the Nestorians employ 
the liturgies of “ Theodore the Interpreter ” (of Mopsues- 
tia) and of Nestorius. 

To the Western family belong: 

(1) The Roman Liturgy, which is held to have de- 
veloped, with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, from the 
nucleus of the Mass as celebrated by our Lord Himself 
at the Last Supper. Our present Missal is based on the 
Sacramentaries of Popes Gelasius I (+ 496) and Gregory 
the Great (-+ 604)."? 

(2) The Milanese Liturgy, introduced towards the end 
of the fourth century by St. Ambrose (+ 397). This 


16 Cfr. Fortescue, The Mass, pp. tescue, The Mass, A Study of the 


81 sqq., 148 sqq. Roman Liturgy, 2nd ed., London 
17 Fortescue, op. cit., p. 97. 1913. See also: Hs „Lucas, S. -J., 
18 Fortescue, op. cit., p. 85. - The Mass. The Eucharistic Sacrifice 


19 The standard work on this sub- and the Roman Liturgy, Vol. I, 


ject at present in English is For- London 1914. 


ARGUMENT FROM PRESCRIPTION © 32r 


liturgy is still in use and differs from the Roman only . 
in a few non-essential points.?° 

(3) The Mozarabic Liturgy, also called the Gothico- 
Spanish, which owes its preservation to Cardinal 
Ximenes ** and is remarkable among Western liturgies 
because it contains an Epiklesis after the Consecration.22 

(4) The ancient Gallican Liturgy, which is Greek in 
structure, but extinct since the eighth century.23 

All these liturgies in their essential characteristics date 
from the first century and bear indisputable testimony 
to the sacrificial character of the Mass and its venerable 


age.’ 


20 Fortescue, op. cit., pp. 106 sq. 

21 See Hefele, Cardinal Ximenes, 
pp. 161 sqq., Tübingen 1844. 
Ximenes’ Missal and Breviary form 
vols, | LAXXV and (ELXXXVT of 
Migne’s Patrologia Latina; edited 
by A. Lesleus (first edition, Rome 
1755).-— Cir. Fortescue, op. cit., p. 
105. A full description of the 
Mozarabic Rite will be found in the 
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X, pp. 
611-623 (by Hy. Jenner). 

22 The Epiklesis is also found as 
late as the fifth century in the 
Gallican, Milanese, and Roman 
rites.— Cfr, Funk, Kirchenge- 
schichtliche Abhandlungen und Un- 
tersuchungen, Molar i Siti) Dal 36% 
Paderborn 1907, 

23 Cfr. Fr. J. Mone, Lateinische 
und griechische Messen aus dem a. 
[?] bis 6. Jahrhundert, Frankfort 
1850. The Gallican Rite is described 
very fully by H. Jenner in the 
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, pp. 
357-365. 


24 Many examples quoted by Chr. 
Pesch, Praelect. „Dogmat., Vol. VL, 
3rd ed... pp. 283 ‘sqq.--' Cir” also 
Kossing, Liturgische Erklärung der 
hl. Messe, zrd ed., pp. 104 sqq., 
Münster 1869; Th. Specht, Die Wir- 
kungen des eucharistischen Opfers, 
pp. 17 sqq., Augsburg 1876; C. A. 
Swainson, The Greek Liturgies, 
Chiefly from Original Authorities, 
London 1884; F. E. Brightman, 
Liturgies Eastern and Western, Ox- 
ford 1896; L. Duchesne, Christian 
Worship, London 1903; G. Semeria, 
La Messa nella sua Stona e nei 
suoi Simboli, 2nd ed., Rome 1907 
(English tr. by E. S. Berry, The 
Eucharistic Liturgy in the Roman 
Rite, Its History and Symbolism, 
New York 10911); A. Baumstark, 
Liturgia Romana e Liturgia dell’ 
Esarcato, Rome 1904; G. Pierse, 
The Mass in the Infant Church, pp. 
168 sqq., Dublin 1909, 


Boe) hE BUCHARIS ToAS A SACKRIRIER 


ARTICLE 4 


THE ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION 


The existence of the Mass in the early days of 
Christianity can also be proved from the writings 
of the Fathers. It is impossible to quote them all 
within the limits of this treatise, and hence we 
shall give a selection of Patristic utterances from 
the first four centuries. 

1. THE ApostoLic FatHers.—The Didache, or 
Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, discovered by 
Philotheos Btyennios in 1883, was probably com- 
posed towards the close of the first century." It 
clearly attests the Apostolic age of the Mass. 


The Didache represents the Eucharistic banquet as the 
unbloody sacrifice predicted by Malachias: “ On the 
Lord’s day come together, break bread and perform the 
Eucharist 2 after confessing your transgressions, that 
your sacrifice may be pure.® But let none who has a 
quarrel with his fellow join in your meeting until they 
be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled. 
For this is that [sacrifice] which was spoken by the 
Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a clean obla- 
tion, for I am a great king, saith the Lord, and my name 
is wonderful among the heathen.’ ” * 


1Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- romw kal xpövw mpoopéperv jor 


trology, pp. 19 sqq., Freiburg and 
St. Louis 1908. 

2 evyaploTnoare: 

3 Kabapa  Ovola buav. 

4atrn yap [Ovolal Eoriv 9 
pndeiaa bmö Kuplov’ Ev mavri 


Ovciav kadapav' Gre Bacireds ueyas 
elul, Aeyeı Küpuos, kat 7d Övond 
pov Oavuacroy Ev Tois Edveou.— 
Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fa- 
thers, Vol. I, p. 331, London 1912. 
— On the liturgy of the Didache, see 


ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION 323 


St. Ignatius of Antioch (+ 107), a disciple of the 
Apostles, says of the Eucharist: “ There is one flesh of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for union with His 
Blood, one altar,? as there is one bishop with the presby- 
tery and the deacons... ...” ¢: And’again 7,“ Lei no one 
be deceived: unless a man be within the altar,’ he lacks 
the bread of God.” ® 

‚Ihe famous Epistula Presbyterorum et Diaconorum 
Achaiae on the martyrdom of St. Andrew the Apostle, 
which was formerly believed to have been written about 
A. D. 80,° by personal disciples who were eye-witnesses 
of the facts, is probably not older than the fifth cen- 
tury"? 


2. THE APOLOGISTS OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 
—St. Justin Martyr (+ 166), in his “Dialogue 
with Tryphon’* says: “The oblation of the 
wheaten flour . . . was a type” of the bread of 
the Eucharist, which Jesus our Lord commanded 
to be offered in commemoration of His passion. 
Of the sacrifices which you [the Jews] formerly 
offered, God said through Malachias: ‘I have no 
pleasure,’ etc. He speaks in advance of the sac- 


Semeria-Berry, The Eucharistic Lit- fice to the gods, whereupon the 
urgy in the Roman Rite, pp. 53 sqq., Apostle replies (c. 6): “ Omnipo- 
New York rort. tenti Deo, qui vivus et verus est, 
5 &v Övauaornpıorv. ego omni die sacrifico non thuris 
6 Ep. ad Philadelph., 4. fumum nec taurorum mugientium 


7 Eevrös Hvoıaornpiov. 

8 Ep. ad Eph., 5. 

9 Gallandi, Bibl. Vet. Patr., Vol. 
I, Proleg. 4, Venice 176s. 

10 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- 
trology, p. 104.— In this letter, often 
quoted by theologians, the pro- 
consul /Egeas is described as com- 
manding St. Andrew to make sacri- 


carnes, nec hircorum sanguinem, sed 
immaculatum Agnum quotidie in 
altarı sacrifico, cuius carnes post- 
quam omnis populus credentium 
manducavit et sanguinem bibit, 
Agnus integer perseverat et vivus.” 

11 Dial. c. Tryph., c. 41 (Migne, 
P. G., VI, 564). 

12 riros. 


324) SE RP OR ARTS PAS Aton cea bs 


rifices ** which we heathen nations ** offer to Him 
in every place,'” that is, of the bread of the Eu- 
. charist and likewise of the chalice of the Eucha- 
rist, Saying at the same time that we glorify His 
name, while you profane Him.” 


In the West, Tertullian (b. about 160) advises those 
who, for fear of breaking the fast, absent themselves 
from divine service on the days of the stations, to take 
the Body of the Lord home with them from the sacri- 
ficial altar and consume it after the period of fasting is 
over. He calls holy Communion “a participation in the 
sacrifice ” which is accomplished “ at the altar of God.” *° 
In another treatise he speaks of a real, in contradistinc- 
tion to a merely metaphorical, “offering up of sacri- 
fice,” +7 and in still another, he dwells on the “ nourish- 
ing power of the Lord’s Body” and the renewal of His 
immolation.*® 


3. THE FATHERS OF THE THIRD CENTURY.— 
St. Irenzus of Lyons (+ 202) declares that 
Christ instituted “the new sacrifice of the New 
Testament,” which the Church regards as the 
“clean oblation” prophesied by Malachias and of- 
fers up to God everywhere. 


13 rept Trav Ovolwp. 

14 yueis Ta EOvN. 

15 éy mavrl romw.— For a critical 
appreciation of St. Justin’s teaching 
on the Mass see Pierse, The Mass 
in the Infant Church, pp. 19 sqq. 

16De Orat., c. 19: “Nonne 
solemnior erit statio tua, si et ad 
aram Dei steteris? Accepto cor- 
pore Domini et reservato utrumque 
salvum est: et participatio sacrificti 


et executio officii [fulfilment of the 


law of fasting].”’ 

17 De Cultu Fem., IL, 11: “ Aut 
imbecillus ex fratribus visitandus aut 
sacrificium offertur aut Dei verbum 
administratur.” 

18 Christ is slain anew (“ rursus 
mactabitur Christus”) to those who 
are baptized, and they are nourished 
“ opimitate dominici corporis.’ (De 
Pudic., c. 9).— On Tertullian’s teach- 


EEE a FR 


ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION Sau 


He writes: “In saying, ‘This is my Body,’ etc, 
Christ inculcated the new oblation of the New Testament, 
which the Church receiving from the Apostles, offers up 
to God throughout the world.” *® According to Irenzus 
it is the Church alone that offers a “pure oblation,” 
whereas the Jews “did not receive the Word which is 
offered to God.” ?° The abolition of the Levitic priest- 
hood, he further explains, does not signify that there are 
to be no more sacrifices, but merely that the “ form has 
been changed.” 24 

St. Cyprian (+ 258), in a letter in which he opposes 
the use of water instead of wine at the Holy Sacrifice, 
insists on the necessity of carefully following the example 
of Christ, and continues: “ Whence it appears that the 
Blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the 
chalice, and that the Lord’s Sacrifice is not legitimately 
celebrated unless our offering and sacrifice correspond 
to the Passion. . . . That priest truly discharges the office 
of Christ who imitates what Christ did, and he then 
offers a true and full sacrifice to God the Father in the 
Church, when he proceeds to offer it according to the 
manner in which he sees Christ Himself to have of- 


ing see Pierse, The Mass in the 
Infant Church, pp. 74 saq. 

gas Houer., IV,\.rz,. ss 
“Christus dicens: Hoc est corpus 
meum etc., Novi Testamenti novam 
docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab 
Apostolis accipiens in wuniverso 
mundo offert Deo.” 

20“ Oblationem puram offert.”— 
“Iudaei non receperunt Verbum, 
quod offertur Deo.” (Op. cit., IV, 
18, 4). 

21“ Non genus oblationum repro- 
batum est, species immutata est tan- 
tum.’ (L. c.).— Wieland maintains, 


in the face of vigorous opposition, 
that the celebration of the Eucharist 
in the primitive Church bore the 
character of a common meal and that 
prior to Irenaeus the Church knew 
of no real sacrifice, no “ oblation ” 
of the Body and Blood of the Lord. 
On this untenable view see Pohle, 
article “Mass” in the Catholic En- 
cyclopedia, Vol. X, pp. 10 sq.; G. 
Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in 
the First Sir Centuries of the 
Church, pp. 74 sqq., St. Louis 1913; 
G. Pierse, The Mass in the Infant 
Church, Dublin 1909. 


826: "HER BUCHARTST AS A SAU REICH 


fered.” *? This passage proves that St. Cyprian knew 
of the Mass and regarded it as a true sacrifice. 


4. THE FATHERS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.— 
Our most important witness for this period is St. 
Cyril of Jerusalem (+ 386), who gives a detailed 
account of the liturgy of the Mass and draws a 
clear-cut distinction between the sacrifice itself 
and the prayers that usually accompany it. 


He says: “After the spiritual sacrifice,* the  un- 
bloody liturgy,?* is accomplished [7. e. after the Conse- 
cration], we pray over this expiatory sacrifice ” to God 
for the universal peace of the Churches . . . and for all 
those in need we pray and offer up this sacrifice.”° Then 
we commemorate the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, mar- 
tyrs, that God, through their prayers and intercession, 
may mercifully receive our supplications. ‘Thereupon we 
pray for the departed, . . . inasmuch as we believe that 
it will be of the greatest profit to them ”" if we pray for 
them in view of this holy and sublime sacrificial gift.”® 
We offer up Christ, who was slain for our sins,”° in order 


teaching see Pierse, The Mass in the 
Infant Church, pp. 86 sqq. 


22 Ep. 63 ad Caecil., n. 9, 14 (ed. 
Hartel)’: Vol. O41, - Bp.// 702 \sg.): 


“ Unde apparet sanguinem Christi 
non oferri, si desit vinum calici, 


nec sacrificium dominicum legitima | 


sanctificatione celebrari, msi oblatio 
et sacrificium nostrum responderit 
passioni. ... Sacerdos vice Chri- 
sti vere fungitur, qui id quod 
Christus fecit imitatur et sacrificium 
verum et plenum tunc offert in Ec- 
clesia Deo Patri, si sic incipiat 
offerre, secundum quod ipsum 
Christum videat obtulisse.’— For a 
critical appreciation of St. Cyprian’s 


23 mvevuarıxıy Ovoia. 

24 dvaluakros NaTpeia. 

25Eemi rns Ovaolas Ekeivns Tov 
ikacpov. 
26 Taurnv 
Ovclar. 

27 ueyiornv dvnaoıw Eoeodaı. 

28 755 aylas Kal bpıkwöcorarns 
mpokeınevns Ovolas. 

29 Xpioröv Eobarynevov vrép TÜV 
Önerepwv Auaprnudarwv mporpepo- 
ev: 


mpoodepouevr = THY 


ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION Beg) 
to propitiate the benevolent God for those who are al- . 
ready dead, and for ourselves,’ 2° | 
‘St. Ambrose (+ 397) lays particular stress on the 
power of the Catholic priesthood to offer sacrifice. He 
says: “We priests imitate Christ, as is our right, by 
offering the Sacrifice for the people; though we are poor 
in merits, we become worthy of veneration by the Sacri- 
fice; for though Christ is not now seen offering, yet He 
is sacrificed on earth, when Christ’s Body is offered.” 3 


5. [HE FATHERS oF THE FIFTH CENTURY. — 
St. John Chrysostom (-+ 407), who has been 
justly called the herald of the Eucharist, might 
with equal propriety be proclaimed the champion 
of the Mass. 


It is upon the Mass that he bases his exalted concep- 
tion of the dignity of the priesthood: “ When you be- 
hold how the Lord is sacrificed and laid there as a slain 
victim,*? and how the priest stands and prays before the 
Sacrifice,*? ... do you still imagine yourself to be 
among men and on this earth? . . . When the priest in- 
vokes the Holy Ghost and performs the sublime sacri- 
fice,** tell me, how shall we rank him?”3 The sacri- 
ficial victim of the Mass, according to St. Chrysostom, is 
Christ Himself. “ Christ instituted the priestly liturgy,*° 
transmuted the victim, and ordained that, instead of irra- 


80 Catech. Myst., V, n. 8 sqq. Patristic texts quoted by Gihr, The 


(Migne,, P. G., “XXXII, rss), 
31In Ps., 38, n. 25: “ Sequimur 
Christum, ut possumus, sacerdotes 
ut offeramus pro populo sacrificium, 
etsi infirmi merito, tamen honorabi- 
les sacrificio, quia etsi nunc Christus 
non videatur [scil. oculis] offerre, 
tamen ipse offertur in terris, quando 
Christi corpus  offertur.’— Other 


Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, pp. 100 


sqq. 
32 tov Küpiov Tedvuuerov Kal 
Keluevov. \ 
33 tov lepéa épectara TH Obuarı. 
Stryy bpıkwöeorärnv EmireAf 
@vclar. 


35 De Sacerdot., III, 4. 
36 tepoupylap. 


728) THE EUCHARIST WAS A SAORIEICE 
tional animals, He Himself should be slaughtered.” °7 
The Mass preserves its unity in spite of the fact that it is 
repeated daily on innumerable altars. “ We always offer 
the same Victim, and not one lamb to-day, and another 
to-morrow, but always the same one. ... Since He is 
offered as a sacrifice in many places, are there not also 
many Christs? By no means, for Christ is one and the 
same everywhere. . . . Now, as He that is sacrificed in 
many places is one Body, and not many bodies, so also 
there is but one Sacrifice.” °° 

The Protestant contention that St. Augustine (-++ 430) 
favored the “symbolic” theory in regard to the Real 
Presence,®® is disproved by his utterances on the Mass. 
He lays it down as a general principle that there can 
be no religion without an external cult.“° In the New 
Testament all other sacrifices have been supplanted by 
the Mass, which is the “ summum verumque mysterium ” 
of the Christian religion, and in which Christ is both 
the sacrificing Priest and the sacrificial Gift.“ Physi- 
cally, he was offered but once, on the Cross; sacramen- 
tally, He is daily offered anew for all nations,*? in com- 
memoration of the sacrifice of the Cross.** Augustine 
calls the attention of the Jews to the prophecy of Mala- 
chias and asks them: “ What have you to say to this? 


37 éauroy mpoodéeperv. (Hom. in  sacramentorum visibilium consortio 


1. Gorintn.,.:24, 0.2) 

38 Hom. in Heb., 17, n. 3.— Ad- 
ditional citations from St. Chrysos- 
tom in Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of 
the Mass, p. 106.—Cfr. also Nagle, 
Die Eucharistielehre des hl. Chry- 
sostomus, pp. 148 sqq., Freiburg 
1900. 

39 V, supra, pp. 67 sq. 

40 Contra Faust., XIX, 11: “In 
nullum nomen religionis seu verum 
seu falsum coagulari homines pos- 
sunt, nisi aliquo signaculorum vel 


colligantur.” 


41.De , Givky Dei, ax, 20% bless 


"Christus sacerdos et ipse offerens, 


ipse et oblatio, cuius rei sacramen- 


tum quotidianum esse voluit Ec- 
clesiae sacrificium.” 

42 Ep., 98, n. 9. 

43 Contra Faust., DD 18: 
“ Christiani peracti einsdem sacri- 


ficii memoriam celebrant sacrosanctä 
oblatione et participatione corporis 
et sanguinis Christi.” 


ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION 329 


Open your eyes at last and see how from the rising to’ 
the setting of the sun there is offered up the Sacrifice 
of the Christians; not in one place, as it was ordained 
among you, but everywhere; not to this God or that, but 
to the God of Israel, who predicted these things; not 
according to the order of Aaron, but according to the 
order of Melchisedech.” ** 

In his “Confessions” St. Augustine relates that his 
pious mother, St. Monica, heard Mass daily, and when 
she was near death, “only desired that we should make 
a remembrance of her at Thy altar, at which she had 
constantly attended without one day’s intermission.” * 


READINGS: —*G. Bickell, Messe und Pascha. Der apostolische 
Ursprung der Messliturgie, Mayence 1872.— J. M. Buathier, Le 
Sacrifice dans le Dogme Catholique et dans la Vie Chrétienne, 
Paris. 1889.—*F. Probst, Die Liturgie des vierten Jahrhunderts 
und deren Reform, Münster 1892.—IpEM, Die abendländische 
Messe vom fünften bis zum achten Jahrhundert, Münster 1890. 
—+A. Franz, Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter. Beiträge zur 
Geschichte der Liturgie und des religiösen Volkslebens, Frei- 
burg 1902.— Wieland, Mensa und Confessio, [: Der Altar der 
vorkonstantinischen Kirche, Munich 1906.—Ipem, Der vorirenö- 
ische Opferbegriff, Munich 1909.— Against Wieland, E. Dorsch, 
S. J., Der Opfercharakter der Eucharistie einst und jetzt, Inns- 
bruck 1909.— The controversy aroused by Wieland’s books, which 


44 Adv. Iudaeos, IX, 13: “Quid era.” — On St. Augustine’s teach- 
ad haec respondetis? Aperite ocu- ing on the Mass see M. M. Wilden, 
los tandem aliquando et videte, ab Die Lehre des hl. Augustinus über 
oriente sole usque in occidentem das Opfer der Eucharistie, Schaft- 
non in uno, sicut vobis fuerat con- hausen 1864.— Additional Patristic 
stitutum, sed in omni loco offerri texts in Petavius, De Incarnatione, 
sacriheium Christianorum, non cuili- XII, 12 sqq.; Schanz, Die Lehre 
bet deo, sed ei qui ista praedirit von den hl. Sakramenten, 3 34, 
Deo Israel, nec secundum ordinem Freiburg 1890; Fr. S. Renz, Der 
Aaron, sed secundum ordinem Opfercharakter der Eucharistie nach 
Melchisedech.” der Lehre der Väter und Kirchen- 

45 Confess., IX, ı3: “ Memoriam _ schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahr- 
sui ad altare tuum ficri desideravit, hunderte, Paderborn 1892. 
cui nullius diei praetermissione servi- 


330 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


were placed on the Index in 1911, is exhaustively reviewed by 
G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries 
of the Church, pp. 62-98, St. Louis 1913 A. Fortescue, The 
Mass. A Study of the Roman Liturgy, 2nd ed., London 1913.— 
A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, 2 vols., New 
York 1893-5.— L. Duchesne, Christian Worship: Its Origin and 
Evolution, London 1903. 


CHAPTER TI 
THE NATURE OF THE MASS 


The nature or essence of a thing is either phys- 
ical or metaphysical. Hence, in dealing with the 
Mass, we have to answer a twofold question: 

(1) What is its physical nature? or in which 
concrete portions of the liturgy does the real of- 
fering take place? 

(2) Is the scientific concept of a sacrifice real- 
ized in the double Consecration, which, we shall 
find, constitutes the physical essence of the Mass: 

In dealing with the first question we will show: 
(1) that the physical essence or nature of the 
Mass consists in the double Consecration of the 
species of bread and wine and (2) that the Mass 
has an intrinsic and essential relation to the Sac- 
rifice of the Cross. 


331 


SECTION 1 


THE PHYSICAL ESSENCE.OF THE MASS 


ARTIC DY 


THE MASS IN ITS RELATION TO THE SACRIFICE 
OF THE CROSS 


I, THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS THE ONE AB- 
SOLUTE SACRIFICE.—The Sacrifice of the Cross 
is the one absolute sacrifice offered for the salva- 
tion of the world, and this in a double sense: (a) 
in so far as among all the sacrifices of the past 
and future it alone stands without any relation 
to, and is independent of, any other; (b) because 
all graces, means of grace, and sacrifices, in the 
present economy, derive their power and efficacy 
from the Sacrifice of the Cross. 


a) The Sacrifice of the Cross is called absolute be- 
cause it is the world-sacrifice par excellence, to which all 
other sacrifices, whether of the Jewish, pagan or Chris- 
tian economy, are related, and upon which all depend. 
This is true in particular of the sacrifices of the Old 
Testament, which, though they had a truly sacrificial 
character, were but types prefiguring the Sacrifice of the 
Cross. 


14. SUPTO; oC lie aly u Sect. nls AT tees 
332 


ESSENCE OF THE MASS 333 


It is an article of faith that the Mass, though‘ 
a true sacrifice, is intrinsically and essentially a 
representation and commemoration of the Sacri- 
fice of the Cross. The Council of Trent defines: 
“.. our God and Lord, though He was about 
to offer Himself once on the altar of the Cross 
unto God the Father, . . . that He might leave 
to His own beloved Spouse, the Church, a visible 
sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, 
whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accom- 
plished on the Cross, might be represented, and 
the memory thereof remain even unto the end of 
the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to 
the remission of those sins which we daily com- 
mit, . .. offered up to God the Father His own 
Body and Blood under the species of bread and 
wine.” ? 


The very expressions which Holy Scripture employs 
to show the sacrificial character of the Last Supper 
“corpus traditum pro vobis,” “ sanguis effusus pro mul- 
tis”)® point to an intrinsic relation between the Mass 
and the Sacrifice of the Cross, for it was only in the 
latter Sacrifice that the “giving of the Body” and the 
“ shedding of the Blood” were physically realized. The 


que memoria in finem usque sacculi 
permaneret atque illius salutaris 


2:Sess, XX11, cap. 12 2 © Is igitur 
Deus et Dominus noster, etsi semel 


seipsum in ara erucis morte inter- 
cedente Deo Patri oblaturus erat, 
.-. ut dilectae sponsae suae Ec- 
clesiae visibile, sicut hominum na- 
tura exigit, relinqueret sacrificium, 
quo cruentum illud semel in cruce 


peragendum repraesentaretur eius- — 


virtus in remissionem eorum, quae 
a nobis quotidie committuntur, 
peccatorum applicaretur, ... cor- 
pus et sanguinem suum sub specie- 
bus panis et vini Deo Patri obtulit.” 
(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 938). 
8V. supra, Ch. I, Sect. 2, Art. 2. 


334 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


Vulgate, in translating the Greek text by “ Corpus quod 
pro vobis tradetur” and “ sanguis qui pro multis effunde- 
tur,’ brings out this intrinsic relation by using the future 
tense. After the consummation of the Sacrifice of the 
Cross this-relation, which had up to then been anticipa- 
tory, became retrospective. 

St. Paul places Christ’s command, “ Do this for a com- 
memoration of me,” * into direct relation with His death 
on the Cross, when he says: “..... You shall show the 
death of the Lord, until He come.” 5 

The character of the Mass, as a commemoration of the 
Sacrifice of the Cross, manifests itself externally in the 
twofold Consecration of the bread and wine. This cere- 
mony illustrates and symbolizes the physical separation 
of the Blood from the Body which took place on the 
Cross.® 

The Fathers regard the Mass as a representation and 
renewal of the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross. St. 
Cyprian says that the Sacrifice of the Lord is not cele- 
brated unless our oblation corresponds to the Sacrifice 
of the Cross.” St. Ambrose writes: “Formerly a lamb 
was offered, .. . now Christ is offered, but He is of- 
fered as if renewing His passion.” *® St. Gregory the 
Great: “‘Let us consider, what kind of sacrifice this 


4Luke XXII, 109. 
biG Corse oles 26% 


bassioni. Passio est enim Domini 


“ Moriem Sacrificium, quod offerimus. Nihil 


Domini annuntiabitis, donec veniat.” 


6V. supra, p. 310. 

(PED. O30 0s. 9 (ed. -Hartel, II, 
708): “ Apparet sanguinem Christi 
non oferri, si desit vinum calici, 
nec sacrificium dominicum legitimä 
sanctihcatione celebrari, nisi oblatio 
et sacrificium nostrum responderit 


aliud quam quod alle fecit, facere 
debemus.”’ 

8 De Offic., I, 48: “ Ante agnus 
offerebatur, ... nunc Christus of- 
fertur, sed offertur quasi recipiens 
passionem.”’— On the teaching of 
St. Augustine (Contr. Faust., XX, 
18), vw. supra, pp. 328 sq. 


ESSENCE OF THE MASS 335 


is for us, which for the remission of our sins constantly. 
imitates the Passion of the only-begotten Son.” ® N 

The relation of the Mass to the Sacrifice of the Cross 
stands forth clearly in the various liturgies. % 

The teaching of Scholastic theology is authoritatively 
voiced by St. Thomas, who says in the third part of the 
Summa: “As the celebration of this Sacrament is an 
image representing Christ’s Passion, so the altar is repre- 
sentative of the Cross itself, upon which Christ was sac- 
rificed in His proper species.” *° 

The same idea is beautifully illustrated by certain | 
medieval paintings, which show the Precious Blood flow- 
ing from the side of our Divine Saviour into a chalice 
standing on the altar. 

b) The Sacrifice of the Cross is the one absolute sacri- 
fice also in this sense that in it the Redemption of the 
human race was once for all accomplished and consum- 
mated in such a way that all other sacrifices and means of 
grace are empty, barren, and void of effect unless they are 
supplied from the main stream of merits derived from the 
suffering of the crucified Redeemer. This is a funda- 
mental dogma of the Christian religion, in regard to 
which Catholics and believing Protestants agree. The 
uniqueness and universality of the Sacrifice of the Cross 
are shown by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews: 
“By his own blood [Christ] entered once into the holies, 
having obtained eternal redemption.” '! There is. no 


9Dial., IV, 58: ‘ Pensemus, passionis Christi, ita altare est re- 


quale sit pro nobis hoc sacrificium, 
quod pro absolutione nostra pas- 
sionem unigeniti Filii semper imita- 
tur.” 

"10 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 83, art. 
1, ad 2: “Sicut celebratio huius 
sacramenti est imago repraesentativa 


praesentativum crucis ipsius, in qua 
Christus in propria specie 1mmolatus 
Ose 

11 Heb. IX, 12: “ Per proprium 
sanguinem introivit semel in sancta, 
aeternü redemptione inventé.” 


336 :: THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


redemption for him who spurns the Sacrifice of the Cross. 
“ For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the 
truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, but a certain 
dreadful expectation of judgment.” 12 

It would be wrong, however, to conclude from these 
texts that the Mass is superfluous or that it derogates 
from the Sacrifice of the Cross. The Council of Trent 
declares: “If anyone saith that the Sacrifice of the 
Mass casts a blasphemy upon the most holy Sacrifice . 
of Christ consummated on the Cross, or that it derogates 
from it, let him be anathema.”1® The Mass is not 
independent of the Sacrifice of the Cross; nor does 
it pretend to add new power or efficacy to that Sacri- 
fice. The two Sacrifices are essentially identical,!* and 
the Mass derives its entire virtue from the Sacrifice 
of the Cross. The infinite value of the latter can 
be neither increased nor diminished. The Sacrifice of 
the Cross, to employ a metaphor, filled the infinite reser- 
voirs to overflowing with healing waters, from which the 
Mass merely draws for the purpose of distributing copi- 
ous draughts to the faithful. The Protestant view of 
the Mass as “a denial of the one Sacrifice of Christ ” 
is wrong; for the Mass does, and can do, no more than 
convey the merits of Christ to mankind by means of a sac- 
rifice (applicatio per modum sacrificit), and hence is 
no independent sacrifice superadded to that of the Cross, 
whereby the latter would be completed or enhanced in 
value. 

The possibility as well as the justification and relative 


12 Heb. X, 26 sq.: “ Voluntarie 13 Sess. XXII, can. 4: “Si quis 


enim peccantibus nobis post accep- 
tam notitiam veritatis iam non re- 
linquitur pro peccatis hostia, terri- 
bilis autem quaedam exspectatio iu- 
dicit.”’"— Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Soteri- 
ology, pp. 119 sq. 


dixerit, blasphemiam irrogari sanc- 

tissimo Christi sacrificio in cruce 

peracto per Missae sacrificium aut 

illt per hoc derogari, anathema sit.’ 

(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 951). 
14V. infra, No. 2. 


ESSENCE OF THE MASS 337 


necessity of the Mass are based on the important distine- 


tion between objective and subjective redemption, between 


the sufficiency and efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Cross.!® 


2, THE ESSENTIAL IDENTITY OF THE Mass 
WITH THE SACRIFICE OF THE Cross. — The Mass 
is essentially identical with the Sacrifice of the 
Cross, because the sacrificial gift and the sacrific- 
ing priest are the same in both, and the only dif- 
ference between them is in the manner of offer- 
ing, which is bloody in the one and unbloody in 
the other. 


a) The Church teaches through the Council of Trent 
that the Mass is, of its very nature, a “ representation,” a 
“commemoration,” and an “application” of the Sacri- 
fice of the Cross. The Roman Catechism adds a fourth 
characteristic, vi2.: repetition.” Hence the Mass is 

(1)-A representation of the bloody Sacrifice of the 
Cross, not after the fashion of a historic tragedy, or a 
passion-play, but as a sacrificial appearance of Christ on 
the altar under the separate species of bread and 
wine. Warte 

(2) The Mass is a “commemoration” (memoria) of 
Christ’s death on the Cross, held in accordance with His 
own command: “Do this as a commemoration of me.” 

(3) The Mass is an “application ” (applicatio) to the 
faithful of the redemptive merits of Christ. 

(4) The Mass is a “renewal” (instauratio) or repeti- 
tion of the Sacrifice of the Cross. This is not an article 
of faith, but a truth inculcated by the Roman Catechism: 


15On the difference between 16 Conc. Trid., Sess. XXII, cap. 
sufficientia and efficacitas (applica- 1. 
tio) see Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology, 17 Cate Roms, Py. ca, que 68: 


pp. 81 sqq. 


338 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE. 


“ He- [Christ] bequeathed to us a visible Sacrifice, by 
which that bloody Sacrifice, soon after to be offered once 
on the Cross, would be renewed. ... For the bloody 
and unbloody victim are not two victims, but one only, 
whose sacrifice . . . is daily renewed in the Eucharist.” 18 
However, this repetition is not to be understood as a 
multiplication, but simply as an application of the merits 
of the Passion. 

b) The relation between the two sacrifices is one of 
essential identity because Priest and Victim are the same 
in both, the only difference being in the manner of 
offering. This is of faith. For the Tridentine Coun- 
cilsays: “. .. the Victim is one and the same, the same 
now offering by the ministry of priests, who then of- 
fered Himself on the Cross, the manner alone of offering 
being different.” *® Is this identity of the two victims 
numerical or merely specific? As Christ Himself is the 
sacrificing Priest (offerens) and the sacrificial Victim 
(hostia) in both sacrifices, there is plainly a numerical 
identity. In regard to the manner of offering (offerendi 
ratio), on the other hand, it is naturally a question only 
of a specific identity or unity, that includes the possibil- 
ity of two, ten, a hundred, a thousand masses.?® 


3. How THE Two SACRIFICES DIFFER.— The 
main difference between the Sacrifice of the Cross 
and the Mass lies, as we have seen, in the manner 


18L. c.: “Nobis visibile sacri- 19'Sessi X NILES cap, zer “Une 
frcium reliquit, quo cruentum illud enim eademque est hostia, idem 
semel in cruce paulo post immo- nunc offerens sacerdotum ministerio, 
landum instaureretur.’— Ibid., qu. qui seipsum tunc im cruce obtulit, 
74: “ Neque enim cruenta et in- sold offerendi ratione diversd.”’ 
cruenta hostia duae sunt hostiae, 20 Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, 


sed una tantum, cuius sacrificium disp. 76, sect. I, n. 4 Sqq. 
. in Eucharistia quotidie instau- 
ratur.” 


ESSENCE OF THE MASS 320 


of offering. But there are other differences, 
though of minor importance. 


a) In the first piace, the Sacrifice of the Cross was an 
absolute, while the Mass is a relative sacrifice.?* 

Another difference is that the Sacrifice of the Cross 
was offered but once, whereas the Mass is repeated in- 
definitely until the coming of the Lord.”? 

A third difference lies in this, that the Sacrifice of the 
Cross completed the redemption cf the human race, 
while the Mass conveys the fruits of that Sacrifice to 
the faithful. 

A fourth difference is that on the Cross Christ was the 
sole Priest, whereas in the Mass He employs human 
ministers, Himself merely acting as Sacerdos principalıs. 

The manner of offering entails a fifth difference, vi2.: 
on the Cross Christ offered Himself im specie propria, 
while in the Mass He offers Himself im specie aliena, 
under the appearances of bread and wine. 

From this follows a sixth difference, vwviz.: that 
whereas on the Cross our Lord was immolated as a pas- 
sible and mortal man, in the Mass He offers Himself in 
the immortal state of glorification. 

b) Regarding the relation between the Mass and the 
Last Supper, we may add that both sacrifices are identi- 
cal in object and subject (Christ) as well as in the man- 
ner of offering. It is perfectly correct, therefore, to say 
that the Last Supper was the first Mass, though there 
are a few non-essential distinctions between the two. 
(1) The Last Supper, like the Mass, was a relative sacri- 
fice, but it was by its very nature an anticipatory com- 
memoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross, whereas the 


.21 The Mass may be called an that it is a real and true sacrifice. 
absolute sacrifice only in the sense 22, Cfirs-1 Cor, XI) 26, 


340. “EHEs BUCHARIST AS. SACRIFICE 


Mass is retrospective. (2) At the Last Supper Christ 
celebrated in His own person, whereas in the Mass He 
is represented by the priest. (3) Regarded in its origin, 
the Last Supper appears as the institution, and conse- 
quently as the pattern exemplar, of the Mass, which on 
its part only imitates what Christ has done and com- 
manded His Church to repeat. 


ARTICLE 2% 


THE CONSECRATION AS THE REAL SACRIFICIAL ACT 


Formerly theologians were very much at vari- 
ance as to whether the sacrifice is accomplished 
in the Offertory, in the Consecration, or in the 
Communion. As these are the three chief parts 
of the Mass, one of them must contain the sacri- 
ficial act. It is now safe to say that the sacrificial 
act is comprised in the Consecration. 

I. THE SACRIFICE NOT COMPLETED IN THE OF- 
FERTORY.—Some theologians have sought for the 
sacrificial act in the Offertory because this part of 
the Mass is made up of prayers composed in the 
true language of sacrifice, e. g.: “Receive, O 
Holy Father, Almighty and Everlasting God, this 
spotless Host,” and: “We offer up to Thee, O 
Lord; the Chalice of salvation,.. . .” * etc. 


From the wording of these prayers it is clear that bread 
and wine constitute the secondary sacrificial elements of 
1“ Suscipe, sancte Pater, omni-  ferimus tibi, Domine, calicem salu 


potens aeterne Deus, hanc im-  taris....” 
maculatam hostiam. . . .”’—“* Of- 


Pr 


ESSENCE OF THE MASS 341° 


the Mass and are offered up to God for the purpose of — 
the ensuing Consecration. Hence bread and wine be- 
long to the sacrifice, not as res oblata, but merely as ter- 
minus a quo of the res oblata, inasmuch as they are 

_destined to cease to exist by being changed into the sac- 

 rificial Victim, Jesus Christ. The Eucharistic elements 
can not be the primary matter of sacrifice, since the Mass 
is not, like the figurative minchah of Melchisedech, a 
mere offering of bread and wine, but of the Body and 
Blood of Christ. “If anyone saith,’ declares the Coun- 
eil of@frent,. that‘ ...,. Christ did- not: : ... ordain. that 
[the Apostles] and other priests should offer His own 
Body and Blood, let him be anathema.” ? 

Consequently, the sacrifice is not in the Offertory. 
Nor can it be in any other part of the Mass preceding 
the Consecration, because the Body and Blood of Christ 
are not present upon the altar until after the Consecra- 
tion. Those theologians who, like Johann Eck, thought 
that the sacrificial act was comprised in the prayer 
“Unde et memores,’ which is recited after the Conse- 
cration, overlooked the fact that the sacrificial victim is 
present on the altar immediately after the Consecration, 
and that, consequently, in the Roman Liturgy, in which 
that prayer occurs, the sacrifice is already consummated 
when the prayer is said. The same is true of the Epikle- 
sis in the Greek rite.2 Moreover, the Scriptural account 
of the Last Supper, which must of necessity contain 
everything that is essential to the sacrifice, makes no 
mention of the aforesaid prayer or of the Epiklesis. 

The same arguments militate against the view of Mel- 

“2 Sess. XXII, can. 2: “St quis nem suum, anathema -sit.” (Den- 
dixerit, ... Christum non ordi- zinger-Bannwart, n. 949). 


nasse, ut ipsi [Apostoli] aluque sa- 3 V..supra, Patt II, Ch. T, Sect. 
cerdotes offerrent corpus et sangut- 1, Arti 2 


B42) ETE VEUCHARISTPASITA ERORTEIGE 


chior Cano, according to which the sacrificial act is com- 
prised in the breaking of the Host or in the mixture of 
the Body and Blood shortly before the “Agnus Dei.” 
For in both cases the mystic slaying of the Victim, in 
which the sacrifice undoubtedly consists, is already over. 
It may be noted in this connection that the Liturgy of 
St. Basil omits the double ceremony referred to. 
Though the Eucharistic Sacrifice can rightly be called 
fractio panis, the breaking of the bread in itself does not 
affect the sacrificial Body of Christ, but merely the ex- 
ternal species, which can in no sense of the word be re- 
garded either as the Victim or as a part of the Victim, 
but merely serves the purpose of rendering visible the 
invisible Body of our Lord, and thereby makes’ possible 
its offering upon the altar. Cano’s theory, furthermore, 
cannot be applied to the Chalice, the contents of which are 
divided only at the Communion. 

Yet the ceremony of the breaking of the Host (fractio 
hostiae) has a profound symbolic meaning. It liturgically 
represents the violent death of Christ and prepares the 
Body broken, 7. e. offered for us, so that it may be a true 
sacrificial food. 

The mixture, in which part of the consecrated bread is 
dipped into the consecrated wine, is a very old and wide- 
spread custom symbolizing the unity and inseparability 
of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the reunion of the Pre- 
cious Blood with the Sacred Body of Christ at the Resur- 
rection. To omit this rite would not render the Mass 
invalid.* 


2. THE SACRIFICE NOT COMPRISED IN THE 
COMMUNION OF THE PRIEST.—The position of 


4 On the fraction and the mixture Mass, pp. 704 sqq.; Fortescue, The 
cfr, Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, pp. 364 saq. 


ESSENCE OR THE: MASS 343 . 


the Communion in the Mass may be briefly de- 
scribed as a participation and completion of the 
sacrifice. The essence of the Mass does not con- 
sist in the Communion for the simple reason that 
the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be consumed 
until the sacrifice proper is completed. 

a) Nevertheless there have been some eminent 
theologians (e. g. Ledesma and Dominicus Soto) 
who held that the sacrifice consists in the Com- 
munion of the priest, as being the destruction of 
the Victim, to which the Consecration forms 
merely a condition and prelude. 


Soto says: “ The death of Christ is not represented in 
the Consecration. The Consecration takes place in order 
that He may be immolated whilst He is consumed; for 
this is a picture of the death and burial of Christ. And 
in the consumption of the Blood we have an image of its 
effusion.”> But this theory can hardly be reconciled 
with the following declaration of the Tridentine Council: 
“Tf anyone saith that . . . to be offered is nothing else 
but that Christ is given us to eat, let him be anathema.” ® 

Equally untenable is the view defended by Bellarmine,’ 
De Lugo,’ and Tournely,® that Communion, as a kind of 
destruction, is at least a co-essential factor in the consti- 
tution of the Mass. If this were the case, then the Last 

ah in Sent., IV, dist. 13, dixerit, ... quod oferri non sit 


qu. 2, art. 1: “‘ Mors Christi non aliud quam nobis Christum ad man- 
repraesentatur in consecratione; imo ducandum dari, anathema sit.” 


consecratur, ut immoletur, dum con- 7 De Eucharistia, IV, 27. 
sumitur; nam illa est mortis et 8 De Eucharistia, disp; 19, sect. 5 
sepulturae Christi efigies. Et in — sq. 

sumptione sanguinis adhibetur imago 9De Eucharistia, qu. 8, art. 2, 
effusionis eius.” concl. 4. 


6 Séss, XXII, can. 1: 16,5% quis 


344. THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


Supper would have been a true sacrifice only on condition 
that Christ had given Communion to Himself as well as 
to His Apostles. For this, however probable it may ap- 
pear, we have absolutely no evidence. Moreover, the 
celebrant of the Mass does not receive Communion as the 
representative of Christ, but in his own person and for his 
own personal benefit. 

Nevertheless, the consumption of the Host and of the 
contents of the Chalice, though a kind of destruction, 
does not satisfy the demand of these theologians because 
the sacrificial transformation of the victim must take 
place on the altar, and not in the body of the celebrant, 
whilst the partaking of the two elements can at most 
represent the burial, but not the sacrificial death of 
Christ.?° 


b) We have shown that the Communion of the 
priest does not belong to the essence of the sac- 
rifice. It does belong, however, to its integrity. 


a) The Communion of the priest marks the completion 

of the sacrifice. It is a strict ecclesiastical precept,** 
embodied in the rubrics of the Roman Liturgy, that in 
case the Mass is interrupted by sudden illness on the 
part of the celebrant, some other priest, even though not 
fasting, shall, if possible, “complete” the Holy Sacri- 
fice by consuming the species. 
_ B) There can be no perfect sacrifice of the unbloody 
kind without a sacrificial banquet. Consequently, the 
Communion of the priest belongs to the integrity of the 
Mass.” 


10 For a fuller discussion of this 11 Cfr. Decret. Grat., De Con- 
theory see Billot, De Ecclesiae Sa-  secr., dist. 2, c. 11. 
cramentis, Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 558 12 Cfr. . St. - Thomas, |. Summa 


sqq., Rome 1907. Theol., 3a, qu. 82, art. 4. 


ESSENCE- OF THE MASS 345 | 


y) If the Communion of the priest does not belong to 
the essence of the Mass, much less does that of the 
faithful. Therefore so-called “private Masses,” at 
which the priest alone communicates, are not only valid 
but lawful, as the Tridentine Council has expressly de- 
fined.** The contention of the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia, 
that “participation in the sacrifice is essential to the 
sacrifice,” and that consequently no private Mass is valid 
unless the attending faithful make at least a “ spiritual 
communion,” was condemned as false and savoring of 
heresy by Pius VI.14 


3. THE DOUBLE CONSECRATION AS THE Puys- 
ICAL ESSENCE OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE Mass.— 
After eliminating the Offertory and Communion, 
there remains the Consecration as that part of the 
Mass in which the true sacrificial character must 
be sought. 

a) The Mass has three chief constituent parts: 
the Offertory, the Consecration, and the Commun- 
ion. If, as we have demonstrated, the sacrifice 
is not in the Offertory, nor in the Communion, it 
must necessarily be in the Consecration. 

In matter of fact, that part of the Mass alone can be 
regarded as the proper sacrificial act, which is such by 
Christ’s own institution. Now our. Lord’s words: 
“This is my Body, this is my Blood,” are embodied in 
the Consecration.'? 


48 Sess. XXII, can. 8: “Si quis 14In the dogmatic Bull “ Auc- 
dixerit, Missas, in quibus solus sa- torem Fidei, A. D. 1794. (Den- 
cerdos sacramentaliter communicat,. zinger-Bannwart, n. 1528). 
illicitas esse ideoque abrogandas, 15V. supra, Ch. L Sect. 2, Art. 


anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bann- 2, 
wart, n. 955). 2 


346 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


Moreover, from the dogmatic teaching of Trent 1° that 
no one but a priest can validly say Mass, it follows that 
the sacrifice must be contained in some act which the 
priest alone can perform. This is the Consecration. 
Consequently, the power of consecrating is identical with 
the power of offering the Holy Sacrifice. This clearly 
appears from the Roman Liturgy. In ordaining a can- 
didate to the priesthood, the bishop bestows on him the 
“ potestas offerendi sacrificium,” without mentioning the 
“ potestas consecrandi.” Hence the two faculties must 
be identical. 

The same conclusion can be deduced from the dog- 
matic teaching of the Church !? that Christ is the “ sacer- 
dos principahs” of the Mass and the human minister 
merely plays a secondary role. It follows that the sac- 
rifice must occur in that particular portion of the Liturgy 
in which the priest assumes the personal part of Christ. 
This he does at the Consecration, when he utters the 
words: “ This is my Body, this is my Blood.” ** 

The teaching here espoused is strongly favored by the 
Fathers 2° and the great majority of the Schoolmen. St. 
Thomas says: “ The sacrifice of this Sacrament is of- 
fered [to God] by the Consecration.” ”° 


b) While -the Consecration as such can be 
shown with certainty to be the act of sacrifice, 
the necessity of a twofold Consecration can be 
demonstrated only as highly probable. - 


a) Christ said at the Last Supper, after consecrating 
both bread and wine: “Do this for a commemoration 


16 Sess. XXII, can. 2. 19 See Vasquez, Comment. in S. 

17 V. supra, Art. 1, No. 2. Theol., III, disp. 212, sect.” 5. 

18 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa 20 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 82, art. 
Theol., 3a, qu. 82, art. 1. 10: ‘‘Consecratione huius  sacra- 


menti [Deo] sacrificium offertur.” 


ESSENCE OF THE MASS 347 


of me.” It is extremely probable that this mandate re- 
ferred to the validity, and not merely to the ees 
of the sacrificial action. 

Moreover, the Mass, as a relative sacrifice, is essen- 
tially a representation of the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross. 
Since it was no mere death from suffocation that Jesus 
suffered, but a bloody death, in which His veins were 
emptied of their blood, this condition of separation must 
receive visible representation on the altar. This condi- 
tion is fulfilled only by the double Consecration, which 
brings before our eyes the Body and Blood in the state 
of separation and thus represents the mystical shedding 
of the Blood. It is this consideration that suggested to 
the Fathers the idea, which was adopted into some litur- 
gies, of the double Consecration as a two-edged “ mys- 
tical sword.” Thus St. Gregory of Nazianzus says: 
“ Hesitate not to pray for me, . . . when with bloodless 
stroke thou separatest the Body and Blood of the Lord, 
employing speech as a sword.” #4 

8) Henriquez, Bosco, Frassen, Henno, and other theo- 
logians, mostly of the Scotist persuasion, as well as a 
few modern authors (Rohling,?? Schouppe, Stentrup, and 
Fr. Schmid ?*) hold that when one of the consecrated 
elements is invalid, the consecration of the valid element 
~ not only produces the Sacrament, but also the (mutilated) 
sacrifice. St. Alphonsus ?* regards this opinion as prob- 
able, but inclines to the one we have adopted as “ com- 
munior et probabilior.’ To-day, because of the weight of 
the arguments brought in its favor, and the authority of 
its defenders, our theory may safely be regarded as “pro- 


21Ep., 171 [240] ad Amphil. 23In the Innsbruck Zeitschrift 
(Migne, P. G., XXXVII, 282). fiir kath, Theologie, 1892, pp. 97 
22 A. Rohling, Miscell, Euchari- sag. 
Stica, in the Mayence Katholik, 24 Theol, Moral., tr. 31, c. 2, art. 


1868, II, pp. 257 sqq. 2 Qu 


348 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


babilissima.” Its opponents base their reasoning chiefly on 
the contention that the Sacrament in the Eucharist is in- 
separable in idea from the Sacrifice. If the Consecration 
of one element alone is valid, they say, we have the Sacra- 
ment, and consequently also the Sacrifice, though the 
celebrant is no doubt strictly bound by the law of double 
Consecration, from which not even the Pope may dis- 
pense. They quote St. Cyprian?® as accusing certain 
priests, who for fear of persecution omitted to consecrate 
the chalice, not of invalidating or mutilating the sacrifice, 
but merely of “ignorance and simplemindedness.” They 
add that it would be difficult to understand why the entire 
Eucharistic celebration was originally called “ fractio 
panis” if the conversion of the bread alone did not essen- 
tially constitute the Sacrifice of the Mass. Needless to 
say, these arguments do not shake our thesis. 


25 Ep., 63, .n. 17. 


\ 
L 


SECTION 2 


THE METAPHYSICAL ESSENCE OF THE MASS 


The physical essence of the Mass, as we have 
seen, is comprised in the double Consecration of 
the bread and wine. There remains the more 
difficult metaphysical question, whether and in 
what degree the scientific concept of sacrifice is 
realized in this double Consecration. In order 
that it be realized, the three essential momenta of 
a sacrifice, vig.: the sacrificial gift, the sacrificing 
minister, and the sacrificial object,” must be pres- 
ent in the double Consecration. 

It is easy to demonstrate the first-mentioned 
two points. Christ Himself appears in the 
double Consecration both as victim (hostia, vic- 
tima) and as priest (sacerdos principalis). The 
object, 7. e. the fourfold purpose of adoration, 
thanksgiving, petition, and propitiation, is also 
clearly attained.” | 

Therefore the problem is finally seen to lie en- 
tirely in the determination of the fourth essential, 
vie.: the real sacrificial act (actio sacrifica), and 
indeed (1) not so much in the physical form of 
this act, 7. e. the external oblation, as (2) in the 
proximate matter, 7. e. the transformation of the 


‘1 V. supra, Ch. I, Sect. 1, Art. 1. 2V. infra, Ch. TIE Pest. 1 
‘ 349 


350 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


sacrificial gift, since the glorified Victim, being 
impassible, cannot be really transformed, much 
less destroyed. 


AR TICLE as 


SOME UNSATISFACTORY THEORIES REGARDING THE 
METAPHYSICAL ESSENCE OF THE MASS 


I. Tue THEORY oF Vasguez.—The famous 
Spanish theologian Father Gabriel Vasquez, S.J., 
correctly distinguishes between absolute and rela- 
tive sacrifice, but holds that a true destruction of 
the victim, 7. e. a real slaying of Christ, was neces- 
sary only for the absolute Sacrifice of the Cross. 
For the Mass, as a purely relative sacrifice, he 
deems it sufficient that the physical slaying of 
Christ be visibly represented in the separation of 
His Body and Blood on the altar. In other 
words, to make the Mass a true sacrifice it suf- 
fices, (1) that its victim was really slain or de- 
stroyed at some previous time, and ( 2) that this 
past event be here and now visibly represented by 
way of commemoration.! 


According to this theory the twofold Consecration does 
not signify any real or equivalent (which actually means 


1 Vasquez, Comment. in S. Theol., 
ILT, : disp7i220, cc's % Commemo- 
rativum [i. e. relativum] sacrificium 
sine rei oblatae immutatione [i. e. 
destructione] esse potest, tametsi ad 
essentiam sacrificti absoluti necessa- 


ria sit, eo quod ratio formalis sacri- 
heit — quae est significatio non in 
verbis, sed in rebus, qua denotatur 


‘Deus auctor vitae et mortis — sine 


tali immutatione in sacrificio com- 
memorativo reperitur.” 


VASQUEZ’S THEORY 351 


not quite equivalent) physical or moral, transformation 
of the Divine Victim, but merely a reproduction and rep- — 
resentation as it were of the slaying of our Lord on the 
Cross by means of the separate presence of His Body 
and Blood under the appearances of bread and wine.” 

This view was adopted. by the brothers De Walen- 
burch, by Becanus, and other older theologians. Of 
modern authors Perrone ® prefers it for the reason that 
it most effectively refutes the objections raised against 
the Mass, since no orthodox Protestant will refuse to 
believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or 
deny that the Mass is a representation and commemora- 
tion of the Sacrifice of the Cross. 


Critical Appreciation of This Theory.— 
Vasquez’ theory has the indisputable merit of em- 
phasizing the intrinsic and essential relation ex- 
isting between the Mass and the Sacrifice of the 
Cross,—a relation without which the Mass would 
be impossible.* But the learned Jesuit does not 
sufficiently emphasize the character of the Mass 
as an absolute sacrifice. 


It is of faith that the Mass is “ a true and proper sacri- 
fice,’ > and not “a bare commemoration of the Sacri- 
fice consummated on the Cross.”® Hence the Mass 
is both an absolute and a relative sacrifice, and must in- 
clude within itself (or, more precisely, within the double 
Consecration which forms its physical essence) all the 
essential elements of both. The essential constituents of 


2 Cfr. Vasquez, Op. cit., disp. 222, 5 Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, can. 
sect. 7 sqq. KE 
3 De Eucharistia, P. II, n. 250. 6 Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, can. 


4V. supra, Sect. 1, Art. I. 3. 


352, THE EUCHARIST AS*A SACRIFICE 


an absolute sacrifice are: the external oblation as the 
form, and the slaying of the sacrificial victim as the 
proximate matter. In defining the Mass as merely a 
living dramatic representation of the slaying of Christ on 
the Cross, without a simultaneous transformation of the 
Victim on the altar, Vasquez appears. to reduce the 
Mass to a purely relative sacrifice, thereby endangering 
the dogma that it is “ a true and proper sacrifice.” 

Nevertheless, Cardinals De Lugo and Cienfuégos went 
decidedly too far when they maintained that the Triden- 
tine definition indirectly stamps Vasquez’s theory as heret- 
ical. The Spanish Jesuit never dreamt of denying either 
the reality of the Mass or its character of a true and 
proper sacrifice; nor did he intend to reduce it to a bare 
commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross. What he 
meant was that the Mass becomes a true sacrifice in itself 
precisely by the fact that it is a representation and repro- 
duction of the Sacrifice of the Cross. The idea of re- 
ducing the Holy Sacrifice to a sort of passion play was 
far from his mind, for he insists time and again on the 
actual presence upon the Eucharistic altar of the true 
sacrificial Body and Blood of Christ. 

It may, however, be justly argued against Vasquez’ 
position that if the Mass is to be something more than a 
mere passion play, it is not sufficient that Christ appear 
in His real personality on the altar, but He must also be 
in some manner really sacrificed there. Cardinal De 
Lugo illustrates this contention as follows: Were 
Jephta to rise again from the grave with his daughter, 
and present before our eyes a living dramatic representa- 
tion of her slaying, after the fashion of a tragedy, we 
should not see before us a true sacrifice, because there 
would be lacking that sacrificial act of transformation or 
destruction of the victim which Vasquez himself acknowl- 


SUAREZ’S THEORY 353 


edges to be an essential constituent of every sacri- — 
fice,” 


2. THE THEORY OF SUAREZ.—According to 
Francis: Suarez, S. J.,2 every true sacrifice in- 
volves “a real transformation of the sacrificial 
matter.’ However, this process need not neces- 
sarily be a change for the worse (immutatio in 
deterius, 1. e. destructio), as in the Jewish holo- 
caust; it may be a transformation into a higher 
and more precious form (immutatio in melius), 
as when incense is transformed into sweet fra- 
grance. 


Suarez neither ignores nor overlooks the fact that “ the 
[double] Consecration as a mystic slaying and separa- 
tion of the Body and Blood has a sacrificial character and 
truly transforms Christ by reducing Him to the condition 
of a victim (status victimae).’® However, he does not 
put the sacrificial action proper in the double Consecra- 
tion, but secondarily in the destruction of the elements of 
bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and primarily in the 
substantial reproduction of the true Body and Blood of 
Christ as the terminus ad quem of the double Consecra- 
tion, thereby identifying the offering proper with the pro- 
duction of the sacrificial Body and Blood. 

This view was adopted by Arriaga, Casalius, and 
others. Dr. Scheeben,!° who also defends it, claims that 

7De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 9.Op.. Cit.,. sect. 6; n...6 sqq. 

19, sect. 4, n. 58.— Vasquez’s theory 10 Die Mysterien des Christen- 
is defended by Father Jos. Rickaby, tums, 3rd ed., § 72, Freiburg 1912; 
S. J. (The Lord My Light, pp. Dogmatik, Vol. Ill, § 270 sqq., Frei- 
142 sqq., London 1915). burg 1882; cfr. Scannell-Wilhelm, 4 


8 De Eucharistia, disp. 75, sect. Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. 
5 sq. J Il, 2nd ed., London 1901. 


S540 HE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


the idea of destruction originated in the sixteenth cen- 
tury and was unknown to the older Schoolmen. In this, 
however, he is mistaken, as may be seen from a passage 
in the second part of the Summa of St. Thomas.™ 


Critical Appreciation of This Theory.— 
The theory of Suarez is based upon an exalted 
conception of the Mass indeed, but errs in identi- 
fying the substantial production of the Eucharistic 
Victim with the sacrificing of the same. 


There is a good deal of truth in the idea that the Eu- 
charistic elements are destined by their destruction to be 
transformed into something higher and more precious. 
The destruction of the victim in any sacrifice is never an 
end in itself, but merely a means to an end, 2. e. the way 
to sanctification and union with God. But the elements 
of the Eucharist are not the victim, and to say that 
the Eucharistic sacrifice, in its last analysis, is. identical 
with the substantial reproduction of Christ under the 
twofold species of bread and wine, reveals a serious 
weakness.!? For the production of a thing can never be 
identical with its sacrifice. With the idea of sacrifice is 
intimately linked in the minds of all men the notion of 
kenosis or self-abasement. To offer something as a sac- 
rifice always means to divest oneself of it, even though 
this self-abasement may finally lead to exaltation. The 
idea of kenosis is entirely wanting in the immutatio per- 
fectiva of Suarez. 


contra communem omnium conci- 
piendi et loquendi modum dicere, 
rem aliquam quando producitur, sa- 
crificart offerri sacri- 


11 Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 86, 
art. 1: “Si aliquid exhibeatur in 
cultum divinum, quasi in aliquod 


sacrum quod inde fiert debeat, con- 
sumendum, et oblatio est et sacri- 
ficium.” 

12 This was already perceived by 
De Lugo, who says (De Euchari- 
stia, disp. 19, sect. 4, n. 52): “ Est 


potuisseque 
ficium Deo generando filios vel ap- 
plicando alias causas naturales ad 
similes procreationes vel produc- 
tiones efhciendas.” 


CIENFUEGOS’ THEORY 355 


3. THE THEORY OF CARDINAL CIENFUEGOS.— Car- 
dinal Cienfuégos, who was a member of the famous col- 
lege of the Salmanticenses,!* in his book Vita Abscondita 
sub Speciebus Velata,!* argues that the Mass can be held 
to be a true, 7. e. an absolute sacrifice only on condition 
that it involves a sacrificial destruction of the Eucharistic 
Christ. This sacrificial destruction he would find in the 
voluntary suspension of the faculties of the senses, espe- 
cially sight and hearing. This suspension of the lower 
life, implied by the sacramental mode of existence, lasts 
from the Consecration to the mixture of the sacred spe- 
cies shortly before the “ Agnus Dei,” at which juncture 
Christ, by a miracle, is supposed to resume the natural 
use of His senses. ; 

Critical Appreciation of This Theory.— Because 
of its strangeness and indemonstrability, this theory * 
has nowhere found acceptance. It is intrinsically im- 
probable because it rests upon purely speculative as- 
sumptions. Even if the glorified Body of Christ in the 
Eucharist were hindered in the natural exercise of its 
external senses by the spiritual mode of its existence, it 
would be no more than a “ pious opinion ” to assume that 
its faculties are resumed by a miracle. The hypothesis 
that Christ, by a third miracle, voluntarily surrenders 
His sensitive functions for a certain time, for the pur- 
pose of performing a sacrificial act, is gratuitous. More- 
over, Cardinal Cienfuégos exaggerates the absolute ele- 
ment of the Consecration to such a degree that he loses 
sight almost entirely of the specific identity of the Mass 
with the Sacrifice of the Cross and of the relativity of 
the former to the latter. 

13 On the Salmanticenses see the 15 Developed in Vita Abscondita 


Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII. sub Speciebus Velata, disp. 5, sect. 
14 Published at Rome in 1728, 2 sqq. 


356 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


4. THe THEorY OF THALHOFER.—Dr. Valen- 
tine Thalhofer,!® an eminent German theologian 
of the nineteenth century,’ asserts the existence 
of a true “heavenly sacrifice” of Christ, which he 
describes as a living representation and virtual 
continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross by vir- 
tue of the intrinsic sacrificial act embodied in the _ 
latter. This act is retained by the will of the 
transfigured God-man, constantly reproduced, and 
externally discernible in the glorified wounds 
of His sacred Body. It is only in this way, says 
Thalhofer, that Christ is, and for ever remains, 
“an eternal priest according to the order of Mel- 
chisedech.” 

According to this view the Mass is linked im- 
mediately and intimately, not with the Sacrifice 
of the Cross, but with Christ’s “heavenly sacri- 
fice,” which becomes a temporal and spatial phe- 
nomenon on the Eucharistic altar. 

Thalhofer explains the metaphysical essence of the 
Mass as follows: “In the Consecration the heavenly 
High Priest, and together with Him the heavenly Vic- 
tim, descends into time and space and thereby into the 
mundane order of the before and after. While becom- 
ing present in forma sacrifcu on the altar by means of 
the words of transformation in the form of separation, 


Christ performs upon the altar, that is to say in time and 
space, essentially the same sacrificial act which He once 
16 See a sketch of his life and 17 He was followed in his deduc- 


writings in the Catholic Encyclope- tions by Simar, Dogmatik, Vol. II, 
dia, Ss. v. 4th ed., pp. 962 sqq., Freiburg 1899. 


THALHOFER’S THEORY 357 


performed upon the Cross, and which He still performs ~ 
as a heavenly sacrifice in the other world. We have the 
same sacrificing priest as on the Cross, the same sacrificial 
object, namely His sacred Humanity consisting of Soul 
and Body, the same internal sacrificial act, really per- 
formed and relatively reproduced. . . . And in order to 
assure the faithful, and to represent to their senses essen- 
tially the same event that takes place in the Consecration 
as that which occurred when the Saviour shed His Blood, 
He becomes present in the Consecration not merely under 
the species of bread, but in the form of separate species. 
The mystical separation of Flesh and Blood in the act of 
Consecration is the external form of the invisible sacri- 
ficial act, identical with the Sacrifice of the Cross, which 
Christ performs upon the altar during the Consecration.” *° 

According to Thalhofer, therefore, Christ’s sacrificial 
act in the Mass continues after the Consecration until 
the Communion. “From that time on,’ Simar adds, 
“the consecrated species (including those destined to be 
reserved) possess exclusively the character of the Sacra- 
ment, or of the Eucharistic banquet.” 


Critical Appreciation of This Theory.—Thal- 
hofer’s theory is profound, but it lacks logical 
development. One of its strong points is the em- 
phasis it places upon the perpetual continuation 
of Christ’s spirit of sacrifice. By showing that 
the forma sacrificü is contained in the separation 
of the Body and the Blood in the Mass as well as 
in the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross, Thalhofer 
helps us to understand how the Mass can and must 


18 Thalhofer, Das Opfer des Alten 1870; cfr. Rauschen, Eucharist and 
und Neuen Bundes, § 32, Ratisbon Penance, Ppp. 65 sdq. 


358 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


be a relative sacrifice. But there are other points 
that challenge criticism. 


Thalhofer teaches that the Mass is based upon a sup- 
posed heavenly sacrifice of Christ, which is the virtual 
continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross and becomes a 
temporal and spatial phenomenon in the Mass. He con- 
tends that these three different sacrifices are held together 
by the one sacrificial act of Christ, as by a common bond. 
But is there really such a “ heavenly sacrifice”? Its ex- 
istence is extremely doubtful, to say the least. The in- 
ternal sacrificial act of Christ in itself is not a true sacri- 
fice, nor can it become such by virtue of the sacred 
wounds of our Saviour, because the sacrificial action is 
wanting. Hence nearly all theologians regard this 
“heavenly sacrifice” as a fond dream." 

Another objection to Thalhofer’s theory is that it ex- 
aggerates the identity of the Mass with the Sacrifice of 
the Cross and reduces the real distinctions between the 
two, which are based upon the different manner of of- 
fering and emphasized by the Council of Trent, to mere 
externalities. 

Finally, Thalhofer, who was an advocate of the de- 
struction theory, fails to show wherein the absolute sacri- 
ficial element of the Mass (or the double Consecration ) 
consists.?° 


19 On Thalhofer’s hypothetical sion of this theory see Sasse, De Sa- 
“heavenly sacrifice” see Pohle- cramentis, Vol. I, thes. 31, Freiburg 
Preuss, Soteriology, pp. 137 sq. 1897. 

20 For a more detailed discus- 


BILL OT Sr PHEORY. 359 


ARTICEE 2 


ACCEPTABLE THEORIES REGARDING THE METAPHYSICAL 
ESSENCE OF THE MASS 


In trying to form a plausible theory regarding the 
metaphysical essence of the Mass, it is necessary to keep 
in mind the following truths: 

(1) The double Consecration must establish and ex- 
plain the fact that the Mass is both an absolute and a 
relative sacrifice. 

(2) The sacrificial action veiled in the double Conse- 
cration must somehow refer to the Eucharistic Christ 
Himself, not to the elements of bread and wine. 

(3) The sacrificial act must culminate, not in the glori- 
fication of Christ, but in a kenosis, 7. e. a real self-abase- 
ment. — 

(4) If this kenosis be conceived as a slaying, it can- 
not be real but only sacramental or mystical, because 
Christ is now immortal and impassible. The term “ mys- 
tical” is used in reference to the mystery in which the 
shedding of Christ’s Blood takes place; it is opposed to 
“real” and equivalent to “representative, commemora- 
tive, or relative.” ! 

(5) The momenta which approximate in any degree 
the mystical slaying to a real exinanition, must not be 
rejected but intelligently appraised. 


1. Tue THeory oF CARDINAL BILLOT.—Struck 
by the observation that the pre-Tridentine theo- 
logians regarded with disfavor the idea that the 
Mass requires a real destruction of the victim, 


Pd 
1 Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, 2nd ed., Vol. LI; 
p. 456, London 1901. 


360 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


Cardinal Billot* refers the absolute element of 
sacrifice to the (active) sacramental slaying, and 
the relative element to the (passive) separation 
of the Body and Blood. 


Both are effected by the double Consecration, which ‘is 
therefore truly a “two-edged sword,” the cause from 
which the double character of the Mass as an absolute 
and as a relative sacrifice proceeds. Since the “ mys- 
tical slaying” of the victim involves the Eucharistic 
Christ Himself, and takes the form of a symbolic destruc- 
tion, we have all the conditions necessary to render this 
view acceptable. 


Critical Appreciation of This Theory.— 
Cardinal Billot’s theory, which was accepted by 
Gihr and Atzberger, duly emphasizes the relative 
element of sacrifice in the Mass, but it is unsatis- 
factory as regards the absolute element, which 
it refers to the sacramental slaying (mactatio 
mystica) of Christ. 


The Mass has this peculiarity, which it shares with no 
other sacrifice, that it involves no real slaying of the © 
victim and no real shedding of blood, but a destruction 
that is purely “ mystical.” Now the sacramental separa- 
tion of the Blood of Christ from His Body is a mystical 
destruction, because “by it Christ is made present under 
the sacramental species in quodam externo habitu mortis 
et destructionis, in so far as under the breakable species 
of bread there is visibly present, vi sacramenti, only the 
Body of Christ, and under the fluid form of the wine 


2 De Sacramentis, Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 567 sqq., Rome 1907. 


BIELLOTSSTLEILORY 361 


only the Blood of Christ, so that in external appearance 
Christ appears before our eyes, so to speak, as a slain 3 
lamb.” * : 

But how can this purely mystical slaying constitute a 
real sacrifice? ee 

This question is synonymous with another, viz.: Was 
the purely mystical “surrender of the Body” and the 
purely mystical “ shedding of the Blood” by our Divine 
Lord at the Last Supper a true sacrifice, or can it be 
called a sacrifice only in the figurative sense of the term? 

Surely the rite which Christ Himself instituted as a 
true sacrifice for the remission of sins must be adequate 
for that purpose. It follows that the mystical slaying of 
the Victim suffices to constitute the essence of the Mass, 
all the more so since what is essential to the notion of 
sacrifice is the external oblation, not the destruction of 
the sacrificial matter. 

For a better understanding of the subject we will add 
that, according to Billot’s theory, Christ offers Himself 
in the Mass not in specie propria, but im specie aliena, 
that is to say, not in His physical being, but in the sacra- 
mental mode of existence, and “ for this reason it is en- 
tirely sufficient for the essence of the Sacrifice of the 
Mass, that our Lord appears under the sacramental veil 
in the state of destruction.” * Moreover, a sacrifice, by 
its very definition, must be something visible. Now the 
invisible God-man appears before our eyes only under the 
unsubstantial appearances of the Sacrament. Hence His 
slaying in the Sacrifice of the Mass must be purely mys- 
tical, consummated by the sacramental separation of His 
Body and Blood.’ 


8 Cfr. Scheeben-Atzberger, Dog- 5 Cfr. Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of 
matik, Vol. III, p. 655. the Mass, pp. 92 sad. 

4 Scheeben-Atzberger, op. cit., P. 
656. : 


362 >: THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


This theory of the double Consecration as a two- 
edged mystical sword, with which the Eucharistic Christ 
is slain and offered in a purely sacramental manner, is in 
conformity with the teaching of the Fathers and older 
Scholastics, and may therefore be called the traditional 
view. In matter of fact it was current up to the time of 
the Council of Trent. The post-Tridentine theology, in 
defending the Mass against the Protestant heretics, need- 
lessly exaggerated the idea of destruction. The tradi- 


tional conception still survives in Deharbe’s and other 


popular catechisms.® 


2. THE THEORY or Lessıus.—Father Lessius, 
S. J., in arguing against Suarez, insists that there 
must be a real destruction of the Victim in the 
Mass, because without this the Mass would not 
be an absolute sacrifice. In common with others 
he finds this destruction in the sacramental sepa- 
ration of the Body and Blood of Christ, as ef- 
fected by the double Consecration, i. e. in the mys- 
tical slaying of our Lord. But he adds a new ele- 
ment when he teaches that the force of the double 
Consecration would result in an actual shedding 
of blood on the altar, if this were not per accidens 
rendered impossible by the impassibility of the 
transfigured Body of Christ. 


This novel view has found many supporters, among 
others Dicastillo, C. Hurtado, Sylvius, Bossuet, Billuart, 


6 On the mactatio mystica in the Geschichte. des Messopferbegriffes, 
Mass, see Fr. S. Renz, Die zvols., Freising 1901-3. 


x ” 


LESSIUS’ THEORY 363 


Gonet, Gotti, Berlage,’ 


Oswald,® Dieringer, Stöckl, ’ 
Glossner, and Bautz. . 


Critical Appreciation of This Theory.— 
Lessius is charged with exaggerating the force 
of the “two-edged sword” of the double Consecra- 
tion and ascribing to it an effect which in the na- 
ture of things it cannot have. 


He says: “It is no objection to the truth of this sac- 
rifice that in it there does not actually occur a separation 
of the Blood from the Flesh, for this happens as it were 
per accidens, because of the concomitance of the parts. 
For by force of the words of Consecration there occurs 
a true separation, and the Body becomes present under 
the appearance of bread alone, and the Blood under the 
appearance of wine alone. And this is sufficient for the 
essence of this sacrifice, both to make it a true sacrifice 
(for the victim, thus made present, is transformed suf- 
ficiently to show that God has supreme power over all 
things) and to make it a commemorative [1. e. relative] 
sacrifice, representing to us the Sacrifice of the Cross 
and the death of the Lord.’”’® According to this theory, 
the intrinsic force of the words of Consecration would 
result in formally excluding the Blood from the Body, 


7 Dogmatik, Vol. VII, pp. 416 sqq. ponitur corpus, non sanguis, sub 


8 Die dogmatische Lehre von den 
hl. Sakramenten, Vol. I, § 25, 
Münster 1894. 

9 Lessius, De Perfect. Moribusque 
Div., XII, 13, 97: “Nec obstat ve- 
ritati huius sacrificit, quod non fiat 
reipsa separatio sanguinis a carne, 
quia id est quasi per accidens prop- 
ter concomitantiam partium. Nam 
quantum est ex vi verborum, fit vera 
separatio et sub specie panis solum 


specie vini solus sanguis, non corpus. 
Et hoc sufficit ad rationem huius 
sacrificti, tum ut sit verum sacrifi- 
cium (fit enim circa hostiam, dum 
sic ponitur, sufficiens mutatio, quo 
protestemur Deum habere supremam 
in omnia potestatem), tum ut sit 
sacrificium commemorativum T[i. e. 
yelativum] repraesentans nobis sa- 
crificium crucis et mortem Domini.” 


364. THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


and the only reason why the Blood is not actually shed 
upon the altar, is that Christ is prevented from dying 
again by the miracle of the co-existence of all the parts 
of His glorified and impassible Body. 

Against this explanation the opponents of Lessius ob- 
ject: Since vi verborum only the Body becomes really 
present without the Blood, and the Blood in turn with- 
out the Body, both Body and Blood appear as they really 
are. The Body, therefore, becomes present on the altar 
animated by the soul and filled with blood. Were it the 
tendency of the double Consecration formally to exclude 
the Blood: from the Body, there would result an actual 
shedding of blood, or the words of Consecration would be 
false.?° 

In spite of some objections, however, we hail the the- 
ory of Lessius as a deepening and an extension of the tra- 
ditional idea of a mystical slaying, bringing it nearer to the 
notion of a real slaying, and thus strengthening the posi- 
tion of the Mass both as an absolute and as a relative 
sacrifice. Gutberlet rightly observes: “It were mere 
quibbling to try to disprove the idea of a mystically 
real separation by saying that the words of Consecration 
do not result in a separation of the Blood from the Body, 
and to contend that they have not this exclusive sense. 
... This is true to a certain extent,— if but one element 
were consecrated, especially if that one element were the 
bread, no separation would ensue. ... But since the 
Blood is consecrated apart from the Body of Christ, the 
Blood must be conceived as existing without the Body, 
and the Body without the Blood; and as the words of 
Consecration are calculated, to effect this double repres- 
entation, they are calculated to exclude the Body from 


10 Cfr. Franzelin, De Eucharistia, P. II, thes. 16; Tepe, Inst. Theol., 
Vol. IV, pp. 323 sqq. 


DE LUGO Ss THEORY 365 «7: 


the Blood and the Blood from the Body. In what other 
way, in fact, would it be possible to represent the bloody 
Sacrifice through the Consecration? Hence our oppo- 
nents defeat themselves with their own weapons when 
they deny that the separation of the Blood from the Body 
is a result of the words of Consecration.” *! 

Nor can it be reasonably objected against Lessius’ 
theory that if a real effusion of the Blood is prevented by 
the impassibility of the glorified Body of Christ and the 
concomitance of the parts, there can be no true sacri- 
fice. The mystically real slaying of Christ in the Holy 
Eucharist is just as capable of being a true sacrifice as 
the slaying of Isaac would have been if Abraham had 
dealt him a deadly stroke and God had not miraculously 


prevented the shedding of his blood. 


'Lessius’ theory, therefore, by no means lacks proba- 
bility. 

3. THE THEORY OF CARDINAL DE Luco.— 
With a view to emphasize the absolute character 
of the Mass, Cardinal De Lugo starts from the 


principle that every true sacrifice demands a real 


destruction of the sacrificial gift. This destruc- 
tion may be either physical (as in the Sacrifice 
of the Cross) or moral (as in a drink-offering). 
The Mass is not only a relative (commemorative) 


sacrifice, but likewise an absolute sacrifice, and 


hence the Eucharistic Victim in the Consecration 
must be slain, either physically or morally. As 
Christ cannot be slain physically because of the 
glorified state of His Body, the slaying must be 


11 Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmat, Theologie, Vol. IX, p. 862. 


366. THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


moral. In matter of fact it consists in the volun- 
tary reduction of His Body and Blood to the con- 
dition of food (reductio ad statum cibi et potus), 
in virtue of which the Eucharistic Saviour, hu- 
manly speaking, places Himself after the fashion 
of lifeless food at the mercy of mankind. This 
self-abasement or kenosis is comparable with that 
involved in the Incarnation, and in some respects 
even goes beyond it.'? 


De Lugo’s theory was adopted by Platel, Muniessa, 
Ulloa, Viva, Antoine, Holtzklau, Tamburini, and others 
of the older school. In modern times it was revived, 
after a long period of neglect, by Cardinal Franzelin, 
who in his profound treatise De Eucharistia has the fol- 
lowing thesis: “We hold with Cardinal De Lugo and 
a great many later theologians, that the intrinsic form 
(essence) of: the, sacrificialüact 1s in this: -Christ 2. : 
puts His Body and Blood, under the species of bread and 
wine, in a state of food and drink, by way of despoiling 
Himself of the functions connatural to His sacred Hu- 
manity.”** Franzelin combines this theory of De Lugo 
quam aliae, quae er communi homi- 


num mente sufhciebant ad verum 
sacrıheium.” 


12 De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 
19, sect. 5, n. 67: ““ Licet [corpus 
Christi] consecratione non destrua- 


tur substantialiter, sed tamen de- 
struitur humano modo, quatenus ac- 
cipit statum decliviorem et talem, 
quo veddatur inutile ad usus hu- 
manos corporis humani et aptum ad 
alios diversos usus per modum cibi: 
... quae mutatio sufhciens est ad 
verum sacrifhcium; fleri enim come- 
stibile illud quod non erat come- 
stibile et ita fieri comestibile ut 
tam non sit utile ad alios usus nisi 
per modum cibi, maior mutatio est 


Pp, II, thes. 16: 


13 Cfr. Franzelin, De Eucharistia, 
“Putamus cum 
Card. De Lugo plurimisque deinceps 
theologis, intrinsecam sacrificationis 
formam in eo esse quod Christus 

. corpus et sanguinem suum sub 
speciebus panis et vini constituit se- - 
cundum quandam sanctissimae suae 
humanitatis a functionibus et ra- 
tionibus eristendi connaturalibus ex- 
inanitionem ad statum cibi ac 
potus.” 


DE LUGO’S THEORY 367 


with the view of Cienfuégos, that the sacramental state 
of the Eucharistic Body is accompanied by a suspension 
of the functions of sense perception. In this form the 
theory has found numerous defenders, among whom we 
may mention Schouppe, De Augustinis, Hurter, Egger, 
Sasse, Einig, and Tepe, though recently opposition 
against it has been growing. 


Critical Appreciation of This Theory.— 
Though Cardinal De Lugo’s theory is open to 
various objections, it may nevertheless be utilized 
to develop, supplement, and deepen the traditional 
view. 


a) De Lugo exaggerates the character of the Mass as 
an absolute sacrifice in much the same manner in which 
Vasquez exaggerates its character as a relative sacrifice. 
In fact, the intrinsic relation of the Mass to the Sacrifice 
of the Cross almost disappears in the theory under con- | 
sideration. The reduction of Christ to the condition of 
food and drink reveals no analogy whatever to the shed- 
ding of His Blood on the Cross. The relation of the 
Mass to the Sacrifice of the Cross is purely extrinsic, 
something added from the outside rather than flowing 
from its inmost nature. Nor is the necessity of the 
double Consecration sufficiently evident, as a single Con- 
secration would suffice to produce the condition of food 
and would, therefore, achieve the sacrifice. Two distinct 
Consecrations might, according to this theory, be required 
for the preparation of food and drink for a banquet (ra- 
 tione convivii), but they are not necessary for the pro- 
duction of the Body and Blood in a state of separation 
(ratione sacrificii), as the exinanition obtains sufficiently 
in one Consecration. 


368 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


b) These and other objections, however, can be re- 
moved if we combine the fundamental principle of De 
Lugo’s theory with the traditional view, as developed by 
Billot, and with the notion of a real and mystical slaying 
of the Eucharistic Victim, as defended by Lessius. 

Despite the fact that, objectively, the transfigured Hu- 
manity of Christ can suffer no diminution of its heavenly 
glory, the reduction of the transfigured God-man to the 
condition of food and drink, and the accompanying sur- 
render of His sensitive functions, according to our way 
of thinking undeniably involves a real kenosis or self-. 
abasement. By this consideration the Christian pulpit is 
placed in possession of a truly inexhaustible fund of lofty 
thoughts wherewith to illustrate the humility and love, the 
destitution and defenselessness of our Divine Saviour 
under the sacramental veil, His magnanimous submis- 
sion to irreverence, dishonor, and sacrilege, and also the 
intrinsic relation of the Mass to the food-offering of 
Melchisedech and the minchah of Malachias, and, finally, 
to emphasize this exinanition as an unbloody and mysti- 
cal continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross. 

The idea just developed is as familiar to Tradition 
as the notion of the mystic slaying of Christ in the Eu- 
charist. Therefore the two should not be pitted against 
each other but combined, as was done by St. Cyril of 
Alexandria when he wrote: “He who was eaten in 
Egypt typically [7. e. in the manna], here offers Himself 
voluntarily ** . . . by placing Himself [before us] con- 
tinuously as the Bread of Life.’ St. Gregory of 
Nyssa *® says that “ the sacrificial Body would be inedible 
if it were alive,’’ wherefore the Body of Christ — at the 


14 Ekovolws Eovröv Ovordter 16 Or. in Resurr., 1 (Migne, P, 
15 Bpwua {ons avTds mapavrika G., XLVI, 611). 
eauröv mapadenevos. Apud Franze- 17 eiwep Euyvxov NV. 


lin, De Eucharist., P. II, thes. 16. 


DE LUGO’S THEORY 369 


Communion of the Apostles —was already offered,”** — 
1. e. transformed into the state of lifeless food. | 

c) Against this ancient Christian conception, which 
found expression also in the liturgies, it will not do to 
object, as Scheeben does, that Christ’s sacramental mode 
of existence under the appearances of bread and wine in- 
volves an exaltation rather than an abasement, since His 
Body and Blood are present in the Eucharist in a pneu- 
matic manner, after the fashion of pure spirits.” The 
fact alleged is true, but it proves nothing. In one sense 
the Eucharistic Christ is indeed exalted and glori- 
fied, but in another sense He is abased and humbled. In 
spite of His transfiguration in Heaven, Christ still retains 
in His Sacred Heart the same sacrificial love for us that 
He bore on the Cross. Is not the Hypostatic Union, the 
greatest of all miracles and the source of all our Sa- 
viour’s glory, at the same time a true kenosis and self- 
abasement? Cfr. Phil. II, 7: “ Christ emptied himself, 
taking the form of a servant.” 

d) But how are we to combine the fundamental idea of 
De Lugo’s theory with the traditional teaching on the 
nature of sacrifice? Gutberlet answers this question stic- 
cinctly as follows: “ First and above all we uphold the 
idea of the mystical slaying of the sacrificial Victim by 
means of the double Consecration. In connection with 
this, the preparation of the food signifies the preparation 
of the slain lamb for the sacrificial feast. In this sense 
the preparation of the sacrificial food continues, supple- 
ments, and completes the mystic slaying. Only a lifeless 
lamb that has been sacrificed can be eaten, as St. Gregory 
of Nyssa says. Because the Eucharist is also a Sacra- 
ment, the Consecration, as an offering, reduces the Body 
of the Lord to the condition of food, which condition 


18759 TO Gama Ereduro. 19V. supra, pp. 162 sqq. 


370 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


is at the same time that of a sacrificial lamb.’ 2° 
Cfr. 1 Cor. V, 7: “Etenim Pascha nostrum immolatus 
est Christus — For Christ our pasch is sacrificed.” 


Reapincs:—*A. Tanner, Cruentum Christi Sacrifcium, In- 
cruentum Missae Sacrificium Explicatum, Prague 1669.—*V. 
Thalhofer, Das Opfer des Alten und Neuen Bundes, Ratisbon 
1870.— Westermayer, Die Messe in ihrem Wesen oder das 
verklarte Kreuzesopfer, Ratisbon 1868—J. N. Diepolder, Das 
Wesen des eucharistischen Opfers und die vorzüglichen kath. 
Theologen der drei letzten Jahrhunderte, Ratisbon 1877.— J. 
Schwane, Die eucharistische Opferhandlung, Freiburg 1889.— W. 
Humphrey, S. J., The One Mediator, or Sacrifice and Sacraments, 
London s. a—J. M. A. Vacant, Histoire de la Conception du 
Sacrifice de la Messe dans l’Eglise Latine, Paris 1894.—J. van 
Wersch, Das hl. Messopfer in seiner Wesenheit und in seiner 
Feier, Strassburg 1895.— A. Charre, Le Sacrifice de ’Homme- 
Dieu, Paris 1899.— W. Gotzmann, Das eucharistische Opfer nach 
der Lehre der älteren Scholastik, Freiburg 1901.— A. G. Morti- 
mer, Eucharistic Sacrifice. An Historical and Theological In- 
vestigation of the Sacrificial Conception of the Holy Eucharist 
in the Catholic Church, London 1901.—*Fr. S, Renz, Die Ge- 
schichte des Messopferbegriffes oder der alte Glaube und die 
neuen Theorien über das Wesen des unblutigen Opfers, 2 vols., 
Freising 1901-1903.—G. Pell, Jesu Opferhandlung in der hl. 
Eucharistie, 2nd ed., Passau 1910.— Interesting articles by the 
Bishop of Victoria, B. C., and the Rev. M. J. Gallagher, of Grand 
Rapids, Mich., in the Ecclesiastical Review, 1900-1914. 

20 Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IX, p. 868, May- 

ence 1901. 


CEbAP PER IH 


tie eCAUSALITY-.OF THE MASS 


A distinction must be made between the effects 
of the Mass and the manner in which these effects 
are produced. 

The effects of the Mass consist in the attain- 
ment of the various ends for which the Sacrince 
may be offered, viz.: adoration, thanksgiving, pe- 
tition, and propitiation. Of these the first two 
refer to God, while the other two have reference 
toman. These effects are called the fruits of the 
Mass (fructus Missae). 

As regards the manner in which the Mass pro- 
duces its effects (modus efficiendt), this partly de- 
pends on the Sacrifice itself (er opere operato), 
and partly on the personal devotion and piety of 
those who offer it with Christ (er opere operan- 
Be fis). 


371 


SECT O NaS 


THE EFFECTS OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS 


I. VARIOUS HERESIES AND THE ‘TEACHING OF 
THE CHURrcH.— The Protestant Reformers, 
headed by Luther, recognized the Eucharist 
merely as a Sacrament and rejected the Mass en- 
tirely. 

a) A Sacrament as such can profit only the recipient. 
It was from this point of view especially that the Re- 
formers antagonized the Mass. They were willing to 
approve of it as a sacrifice of adoration and thanksgiving, 
though even in this sense they distorted the Catholic 
concept by declaring that it was a sacrifice in a figurative 
or symbolical sense only, 7. e. a mere offering of prayers. 
The Protestant symbolic books insist that the Mass can- 
not be a true sacrifice because there is but one true sacri- 
fice, vi2.: that of the Cross.! 


b) The Council of Trent emphasized the im- 
petratory and propitiatory character of the Mass 
by defining: “If anyone saith that the Sacrifice 
of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of 
thanksgiving, . . . but not a propitiatory sacri- 
fice, or that it profits him only who receives, and 
that it ought not to be offered for the living and 


1V. supra, p. 336. 
372 


EEPEGES OF THE) MASS 373 


the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other ; 
necessities, let him be anathema.” ” | 


In this canon we have a summary of all the sacrificial 
effects of. the Mass. 

(1) The Mass is a sacrifice of Bi (sacrificium 
latreuticum) ; | 

(2) It is a sacrifice of thanksgiving (sacrificium eu- 
charisticum) ; 

(3) It is a sacrifice of propitiation (sacrificium pro- 
pitiatorium), referring to our sins (peccata) and to the 
temporal punishments which must be expiated by works 
of penance (poenae) or satisfaction (satisfactiones) in 
this life or in purgatory ; 

(4) It is a sacrifice of impetration (sacrificium impe- 
tratorium), directed towards our spiritual concerns and 
“needs (aliae necessitates). 

The Tridentine definition expressly says that, as a sac- 
rifice of propitiation, the Mass can be offered also for the 
dead, i. e. the souls of the faithful departed in purgatory. 

We have already shown that the Mass is a true sacri- 
fice. That it is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is 
evident. Hence all that remains to be proved is that it is 
a sacrifice of impetration and propitiation.* 


2, Tue Mass A TRUE SACRIFICE OF IMPETRA- 
TION AND PROPITIATION.—Impetration (impetra- 
tio) and propitiation (propitiatio) are distin- 


2Sess. XXII, can. 3: “Si quis  tatibus offerri debere, anathema sit.” 
dixerit, Missae sacrificium tanium (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 950). 
esse laudis et gratiarum actions, 39. Ch. 1,,supra: 

. non autem propitiatorium, vel 4Cfr. Mal. I, 10 sqq. The tra- 


soli prodesse sumenti neque pro ditional teaching on the subject is ef- 
vivis et defunctis, pro peccatis, poe- fectively developed by Th. Specht, 
nis, satisfactionibus et alüs necessi- Die Wirkungen des eucharistischen 

Opfers, pp. 17 saq., Augsburg 1876. 


374. ° THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


guishable from each other. The former appeals 
to the goodness (benignitas) of God, the lat- 
ter to His mercy (misericordia). Naturally, 
therefore, they differ also as regards their ob- 
jects. The divine mercy is concerned with sins 
and the penalties of sin (peccata et poenae pec- 
catı), for which satisfaction must be given (satis- 
factio). In every one of these respects the Mass 
produces all the effects of a true impetratory and 
propitiatory sacrifice. 

a) A convincing Scriptural argument can be 
construed on the basis of the Tridentine Coun- 
cil® as follows: Among the numerous sacrifices 
of the Old Testament there were not only sacri- 
fices of praise and thanksgiving, but likewise 
sacrifices of impetration and propitiation.® Now, 
the New Testament, as the antitype of the Old, 
must also have a sacrifice that serves and suffices 
for all these objects. But, according. to the 
prophecy of Malachias, the only sacrifice of the 
New Testament is the Mass. Consequently the 
Mass is an impetratory and propitiatory sacrifice. 


The propitiatory character. of the Mass may further- 
more be deduced from the following considerations: 
According to Heb. V, 1, every priest is ordained for the 
purpose “that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for 
sins.” 7 Now the Mass is a true sacrifice and its celebrant 

5 Sess, XXII, cap. 1. Tilva mpoodepn Öwpda re Kal 


6Cfr. Lev. IV sqq.; 2 Kings @volas Umep auaprıuv. 
MALY; 721 28q9q.;,2-Mach. LII,.32, 


EFFECTS OF THE MASS 375 


a true priest. Therefore, the Mass must be a true sacri-- 


fice of propitiation. This conclusion is expressly stated. 


in the words wherewith our Lord instituted the Holy 
Eucharist. Matth. XXVI, 28: “For this is my blood 
of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many 
unto remission of sins.” ® 

Is there Biblical warrant for the Tridentine teaching 
that the Mass may be offered also for the dead? 

Christ’s words, as quoted, are general, and there is no 
reason to except the dead. Moreover, we know from the 
Second Book of the Machabees® that in the Old Testa- 
ment sacrifices were offered for the sins of the dead, and 
hence it is perfectly legitimate to conclude that the Mass 


must serve the same purpose. 


b) The chief source of our dogma, however, 
is Tradition. The impetratory and propitiatory 
value of the Mass is clearly apparent both from 
the teaching of the Fathers and from the ancient 
liturgies. 


a) Tertullian testifies that the early Christians “ sacri- 


_ ficed for the welfare of the emperor.” !° St. Cyril of Je- 


rusalem describes the liturgy of the Mass of his day as fol- 
lows: “Over this sacrifice of propitiation 1! we pray to 
God for the universal peace of the churches, for the 
proper guidance of the world, for the emperor, soldiers, 
and companions, for the infirm and the sick, for those 
stricken with trouble, and in general for all in need of 
help we pray and offer up this sacrifice.” 12 The last- 
quoted phrase shows that St. Cyril ascribes the efficacy 


8 els dpeci auapriov. llrairny  mpoodepouevr Tiv 
92 Mach. XII, 43 sqq. Ouciav. A 
10Ad Scapul., .2: “lItaque et 12 Catech. Myst., 5,.n. 8 (Migne, 


sacrikcamus pro salute imperatoris.” P. G., XXXIII, 1115). 


370. : THE BUCHARIST AS At SACRIFICE 


of the Mass directly to its sacrificial character. At the 
time of St. Chrysostom, Mass was said “ for the fruits 
of the earth and other needs.” 18 

This argument is confirmed by the ancient liturgies, 
which contain masses for travellers, for bridal couples, 
for rain, etc. 


6) The Fathers and the ancient liturgies also 
attest the fact that in the primitive Church Mass 
was offered up as a propitiatory sacrifice alike for 
the living and the dead. 


St. Jerome says: “ [The bishop] daily offers an unde- 
filed sacrifice for his own sins and those of the people.” !* 
St. Augustine compares the Mass with the Levitic sacri- 
fices of the Old Law and says that it effects the remis- 
sion of sins.® St. Gregory the Great writes: “ This 
Victim in a singular manner preserves the soul from 
eternal damnation.” ° 

The ancient liturgy of St. James!’ has the following 
passage: “ We implore Thy goodness, that this sacri- 
fice may not tend to the judgment of Thy people, since 
it is instituted for our salvation, for the forgiveness of 
sins, for the remission of follies, and as a thanksgiving 
toi hee. ie | 

Masses for the dead were common in the early Church. 


13 Hom. in Act., 21, n. 4. 

WAU AWE is Ly Des 
[episcopus] pro suis populique pec- 
catis illibatas Deo oblaturus est 
hostias.”’ 

15 Quaest. in Lev., 57: “ Illis sa- 
crificiis unum hoc  sacrificium 
[Missa] significabatur, in quo vere 
fit remissio peccatorum, a cuius ‘ta- 
men sacrificu sanguine in alimentum 
sumendo non solum nemo prohibe- 


“ Quotidie © 


tur, sed ad bibendum potius omnes 
exhortantur, qui volunt habere vi- 
tam.” 

16 Dial., IV, 58: ‘‘ Haec victima 
singulariter ab aeterno interitu ant- 
mam salvat.” 

17 Apud Renaudot, Lit. 
Collect., II, p. 30. 

18 Other examples from ancient 
liturgies are quoted by Tepe, Inst. 
Theol=" Vol EV, pp. 337 589° 


Orient. 


EFFECTS OF THE MASS 377 


Tertullian exhorts a widow to have the holy Sacrifice” 
offered up for her departed husband on the anniversary 
of his death2® The Church of Carthage forbade priests 
to act.as civil guardians of children under penalty of 
having no masses said for the repose of their souls. St. 
Cyprian enforced this law strictly against a disobedient 
priest named Victor.” St. Augustine wrote a special 
treatise on “ How to Help the Dead.’— We read in the 
books of the Machabees,” he says, “that a sacrifice was 
offered for the dead; but even if we read nothing like 
this anywhere in the ancient Scriptures, there is the 
weighty authority of the universal Church, which ob- 
serves the custom of giving a place in the prayers of the 
priest at the altar, to the commendation of the dead.” * 
His mother, St. Monica, on her death-bed had asked him 
to offer Masses for the repose of her soul, and Augustine 
in describing her funeral says: “ And now behold the 
body is carried out to be buried; and I go and return 
without tears. Neither in those prayers which we poured 
forth to Thee, when the sacrifice of our ransom was of- 
fered to Thee for her, the body being set down by the 
grave, before the interment of it, as custom is there, 
— neither in those prayers, I say, did I shed any tears.” ?° 

19De Monog., 10: “Pro anima tur, non parva est universae Ec- 


eius refrigerium adpostulet [vidua] clesiae, quae in hac consuetudine 
et oferat [scil. per sacerdotem] claret, auctoritas, ubi in precıbus 


annuis diebus dormitionis eius.” sacerdotis, quae Domino Deo ad eius 
20 Ep. 66, n. 2: “Non est quod altare funduntur, locum suum habet 
pro dormitione eius apud vos hat etiam commendatio mortuorum,” 
oblatio, aut deprecatio aliqua nomine 22 Confess., IX, 12:. “ Quum 
eius in Ecclesia frequentetur.”— ecce corpus elatum est, imus, redi- 
For the testimony of St. Cyril of mus sine lacrimis. Nam neque in 
Jerusalem, v. supra, p. 326. eis precibus quas tibi fudimus, quum 


21 De Cura Gerenda pro Mortuis, offerretur pro ea sacrificium pretü 
c. 1, n. 3: “In Machabaeorum nostri, iam iurta sepulcrum posito 
libris legimus oblatum pro mortuis cadavere, priusquam deponeretur, 
sacrificium; sed etsi nusquam in sie illic fieri solet, nec in eis preci- 
Scripturis veteribus omnino legere- bus flevi.” 


378%, THE BUCHARIST AS A USACRIFICE 


From the innumerable ancient liturgies which testify 
to the belief of the Church on this head, we will quote only 
one prayer. It is taken from the Sacramentary of St. 
Gregory and reads as follows: “I will offer Thee this 
reasonable, unbloody sacrifice with a clear conscience, for 
the remission of my sins and iniquities, for the forgive- 
ness of the crimes of Thy people, for the repose and 
refreshment of our fathers who have passed away in the 
true faith." 7* 


3. Masses In Honor oF THE SAINTS.—It en- 
ters into the very concept of the Mass as a sacri- 
fice of adoration and praise that it can be offered 
to God alone. To offer sacrifice to a creature 
would be idolatry. This applies in a special man- 
ner to the Mass, in which the God-man Himself 
is the sacrificial victim. It is quite a different 
thing, however, to offer the Mass in honor of the 
saints, 7. e. to thank God for their exaltation in 
Heaven, and to procure for us their efficacious in- 
tercession. 


Here is the authentic explanation of the Tridentine 
Council: “Although the Church has been accustomed 
at times to celebrate certain Masses in honor and memory 
of the saints, she does not, therefore, teach that sacrifice 
is offered unto them, but unto God alone, who crowned 
them; whence neither is the priest wont to say: ‘I 
offer sacrifice to thee, Peter or Paul,’ but, giving thanks 


nostrorum qui olim obdormierunt in 
fide orthodoxa.’’— On Masses for 


23 Apud Renaudot, Lit. Orient. 
Collect., I, p. 26: “ Offeram tibi 


hoc sacrificium rationabile, incruen- 
tum cum conscientia pura in remis- 
sionem peccatorum et iniquitatum 
mearum, veniam delictorum populi 
tui, requiem et refrigerium Patrum 


the dead see Bellarmine, De Eucha- 
ristia, VI, 2, 7; De Augustinis, De 
Re Sacrament., Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 
774 sqq. 


BEERECTSCOR THE MASS 379 


to God for their victories, he implores their patron- 
age. ...””* With this threefold limitation, Masses in 
honor of the saints are certainly no base imposture, as the 
Lutherans allege, but perfectly legitimate. The Council 
of Trent defines: “If any one saith that it is an im- 
posture to celebrate Mass in honor of the saints, and for 
obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church in- 
tends, let him be anathema.” 25 

The Catholic practice is approved by antiquity. The 
early Christians were wont to celebrate Mass in honor of 
the martyrs on the day of their death and to erect altars 
over their graves. Tertullian testifies that Mass was 
offered in ‚memory of the martyrs every ‘year.’ St. 
Cyprian says of two famous martyrs, St. Lawrence and 
St. Ignatius: “We offer sacrifices for them always, as 
you remember, as often as we commemorate the anni- 
versary of their suffering and death.”?7 The commemo- 
ration of the saints has a place in practically all of the 
ancient Mass liturgies. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in describ- 
ing the liturgy of his day, says: ‘“ We then commemo- 
rate the departed, and first of all the patriarchs, prophets, 
apostles, martyrs, that God may, through their prayers 
and intercession, graciously accept our supplications.” 28 


24Sess. XXII, cap. 3: “Et norem sanctorum et pro illorum in- 
quamvis in honorem et memoriam tercessione apud Deum obtinendä, 


sanctorum nonnullas interdum Mis- sicut Ecclesia intendit, anathema 
sas Ecclesia celebrare consueverit, sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 952). 
non tamen allis sacrificium offerri 26 De Coron., c. 3: ‘* Oblationes 
docet, sed Deo soli, qui illos corona- pro natalitiis [martyrum] annua die 
wit, unde nec sacerdos dicere solet: facimus.” (Migne, P. L., Il, 79). 
Offero tibi sacrificium, Petre vel 27 Ep., 39, n. 3: © Scacrıheia pro 
Paule, sed Deo de illorum victoriis tis semper, ut meministis, offerimus, 
gratias agens eorum patrocinia im- quoties martyrum passiones et dies 
plorat.’ (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. anniversarid commemoratione cele- 
941). bramus.” (Ed. Hartel, II, 583). 
25 Conc. Trident., Sess. XXI, 28 Catech. Myst., 5, n. 9.— On the 
can. 5: “ Si quis dixerit, impostu- veneration and invocation of the 


ram esse Missas celebrare in ho- saints in general see Pohle-Preuss, 


380 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


When the Fathers and the ancient liturgies speak of 
Mass being offered for the martyrs, the preposition pro 
(ixép) means not “for the repose or salvation,” but in 
honor of (pro honore), in the sense of veneration (cultus 
duliae) ; for the saints in Heaven, having attained the 


beatific vision, no longer need our prayers. The repro- 


bates in hell cannot profit by the Mass because they are 
irrevocably lost.2° Consequently, there remain only the 
living on earth and the poor souls in purgatory who are 
able to participate in the fruits of the Holy Sacrifice. 

Among the living on earth the fruits of the Mass apply 
in the first place to those who are in the state of sanctify- 
ing grace, secondly to those Christians who are in mortal 
sin. Heretics and excommunicated Catholics, Jews and 
Mohammedans, pagans and infidels are not excluded 
from the benefits of the Holy Sacrifice, though the 
Church has limited the application of its so-called special 
fruits ®! in regard to non-Catholics. 


Mariology, pp. 139 sqq. On the sub- 29 Cfr. Bickell, Messe und Pascha, 
ject of this subdivision cfr. Bellar- pp. 136 sqq., Mayence 1872. 
mine, De Eucharistia, VI, 8. 30 See Eschatology. 


81 V. infra, Sect. 2, No. 3. 


SECTION «2 


IN WHAT MANNER THE MASS PRODUCES ITS 
EFFECTS 


The effects of the Mass as well as the manner of its 
efficacy ultimately depend on the value of the Mass, and 
hence we shall have to devote some space to this “ cele- 
brated and much controverted question.” ! 

The efficacy of the Mass is partly ex obere operato, 
and partly we may say, for the most part,— ex opere 
operantis. That is to say, the opus operans, 1. e. the 
proper disposition of those whom it is to benefit, plays a 
far more important role in the application of the fruits of 
the Mass than is generally supposed. 

The last question to be considered is whether the for- 
giveness of sins effected by the Mass is immediate or only 
mediate. 


I. VALUE OF THE Mass.—The Holy Sacrifice 
of the Mass has both an intrinsic and an extrinsic 
value. Its intrinsic value is derived from the ob- 
jective dignity of Christ, who is both its High 
Priest and Sacrificial Victim. Its extrinsic value 
consists in the sum-total of the concrete effects 
which the Mass produces by virtue of the appli- 
cation of the fruits of the atonement. 


1 Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 79, sect. 11, n. I. 


. 381 


382. DHE EUCHARIST AS. A’ SACRIFICE 


a) The intrinsic value of the Mass, like that of the 
Sacrifice of the Cross, is, of course, infinite. 

Every act of the God-man possesses infinite value in 
the eyes of God.? Needless to say, the action of Christ 
in the Mass creates no new values, but simply applies 
the thesaurus of the merits and satisfactions contained 
in the Sacrifice of the Cross to the faithful. “ The fruits 
of this bloody oblation,” says the Council of Trent, “are 
received most plentifully through this unbloody one.” 3 

As regards the extrinsic value of the Mass, we must 
first of all distinguish between sacrifices of praise and 
thanksgiving on the one hand, and sacrifices of impetra- 
tion and propitiation on the other. The first two are 
directed to God alone and cannot be applied to man, and 
hence a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered by 
the Son of God Himself (in the name of humanity) must 
be infinite, since God cannot but take infinite pleasure in 
the praise and thanksgiving of His only-begotten Son. 


b) The case is different with sacrifices of im- 
petration and propitiation. 


a) Theologians generally * agree that in itself (in actu 
primo) the Mass, as a sacrifice of impetration and pro- 
pitiation, has infinite power, because impetration and 
propitiation performed by the God-man must have the 
same infinite value as praise and thanksgiving, though they 
may not attain their full effect on account of the limitations 
of human nature. It follows that intensively (intensive) 
the external value of the Mass as a sacrifice of impe- 


2Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, per hanc incruentam uberrime per- 
pp. 161 sqq.; Soteriology, pp. 70 _ cipiuntur.” 
sqq. 4 With but few exceptions, among 


3 Sess. XXII, cap. 2: “Cuius them Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, 
quidem oblationis cruentae fructus VI, 4. 


EFFECTS OF THE MASS 383 


tration and propitiation can be but finite. This is con- — 
firmed by experience, and also by the fact that the Church. 
allows many Masses to be offered for the same purpose. 
We may fairly ask, however, whether in its application 
(in actu secundo) and extensively (extensive) the value 
of the Mass is also merely finite. Or, to put it somewhat 
differently — Can the value of the Mass, which is in- 
tensively finite, be applied to an unlimited number of 
persons in such a manner that its efficacy is in no wise 
diminished? Or do the individual beneficiaries share in 
the fruits pro rata? Rather than answer this question in 
the negative, many theologians prefer to hold that the 
Mass is of infinite value also extensive, and that the 
amount of the fruits each beneficiary receives, varies in 
proportion to his piety, worthiness, and devotion, in short, 
depends on “the work of the agent” (ex opere operan- 
tis). Surely, indeed, he would be a poor Christian who 
would expect wonders from the Holy Sacrifice of the 
Mass in spite of his own indifference.® 

B) Nevertheless, the question must be answered with 
a distinction. In addition to the active there are also 
passive participators in the Sacrifice of the Mass. These 
are the persons in whose favor,— it may be without their 
knowledge and against their wishes,— the Holy Sacrifice 
is, offered. As ‘regards the active ) participants, /2: \\e. 
the celebrating priest and the attending faithful, the 
distributive value of the Mass does not depend on the num- 
ber of those who take part in it. If this were the case, it 
could be truly said that the fewer the people who attend, 
the greater the fruits derived by those actually present. 
But this is contrary to the mind of the Church and the 
belief of the faithful. Each active participant receives 


5 See No. 2, infra. 
6 Cfr. Suarez,.De Eucharistia, disp. 79, sect. 2, 


334° THE EUCHARIST: AS A SACRIFICE 


as much of the fruits of the Mass as his personal worthi- 
ness and devotion entitle him to. It is not possible to 
assign a definite limit. 

The question lies somewhat differently with the passive 
participators, 1. e. those in whose favor the Holy Sacrifice 
is offered. 


c) On this point theologians differ widely. 
The minority (Cajetan, Ledesma, Gonet, Vas- 
quez, St. Alphonsus, Ballerini, et al.), hold that 
the applicable value of the Holy Sacrifice is in- 
finite, and that a single Mass offered for a hun- 
dred persons or intentions is as efficacious as a 
hundred Masses celebrated for a single person 
or intention." 


Billuart* argues in favor of this view that “the in- 
finite dignity of both the sacrificial Gift and the sacrificing 
High Priest Jesus Christ cannot be limited Ey the finite 

erificial activity of the human minister,’ and after 
ae weighing all reasons pro and con, arrives at the 
conclusion that both opinions are probable but neither is 
certain.’ For the rest, even the opponents of this view 
readily admit that the value of a Mass, as a sacrifice 
of impetration, suffers no diminution by its being offere 
for many persons or intentions, because the divine mercy 
and bounty cannot be limited in the same way as divine 
justice, which, in matters of debt, must enforce strict 
equity. For this reason, they say, the Church prays for 

7 Cir. :Gonet, ‘disp, 11, art. 5, n. 9 Ibid.: “ Ceterum utraque . est 
100:  Dico tertio, hoc sacrificium probabilis, et quamvis in secundam 
oblatum pro pluribus aeque prodest propendere videar, agnosco tamen 
cuilibet, ac si pro uno tantum of- neutram esse certam, sed quamlibet 


feratur.” patt suas dificultates.” 
8 De Eucharistia, diss. 8, art. 5. 


EFFECTS OF THE MASS 385 


the Pope, the Ordinary of the diocese, and the faithful © 
generally in the Canon of every Mass, regardless of 
whether or not the celebrant has received a stipend com- 
pelling him to apply its special fruits to some particular 
person or intention. There is no danger that these special 
fruits will be in any way diminished or curtailed. 


The overwhelming majority of Catholic theolo- 
gians *° incline to the conviction that the satisfac- 
tory value of a Mass, which is directed to the re- 
mission of the temporal punishments of sin, is so 
strictly circumscribed and limited from the out- 
set, that it accrues pro rata (according to the 
greater or less number of the individuals living 
or dead, for whom the Sacrifice is offered) to each 
of the individual beneficiaries. 


Many authors hold this to be true also of the impe- 
tratory and the propitiatory value of the Mass. Their 
view finds strong support in the custom prevailing among 
the faithful of having several Masses celebrated for 
the deceased or for their special intentions. Only on 
such a hypothesis !! is it possible to understand why a 
parish priest is strictly bound to apply the Mass to his 
parishioners on Sundays and holydays of obligation.'? 
Only on such a hypothesis, finally, is it possible to ex- 
plain why the Church has forbidden in strict justice that 
a priest should seek to fulfil the obligations imposed by 
several stipends by reading a single Mass.!® 


10A list of them is given by semper oblatas,’ § 2: “Nec illud 
Tepe, Inst. Theol., Vol. IV, p. pro aliis applicare aut pro huiusmodi 
347. applicatione eleemosynam percipere 
11 Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. posse.” 
XXIII, cap. 1, De Ref. 13 Prop. ab Alexandro VII. Damn. 


12 Benedict XIV, Const. “‘Quum a. 1665, prop. 10: “Non est contra 


380 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


Tournely adduces in favor of this view important in- 
ternal grounds of probability, e. g.: the will of God to see 
the Holy Sacrifice offered as often as possible and with 
the largest possible attendance on the part of the faith- 
ful; the general rule of Divine Providence to allow all 
natural and supernatural causes to produce their effects 
slowly and gradually ; and, finally, the most holy intention 
of God that man should, by his personal exertions, strive 
‘through the medium of the greatest possible number of 
Masses to participate in the fruits of the Sacrifice of the 
Cross.4# 


2. THE Mass Propuces Its EFFECTS PARTLY 
EX OPERE OPERATO AND PARTLY EX OPERE OPE- 
RANTIS.—How the Mass works its effects is rather 
difficult to explain. In every Mass four distinct 
categories of persons really participate. They 
are: 

(a) The High Priest Jesus Christ Himself 
(sacerdos principalis s. primarius) ; 

(b) The Church, His mystic Bride and repre- 
sentative on earth; 

(c) The celebrant (sacerdos ministerialis s. 
secundarius ) ; 

(d) All those who, besides the celebrant, take 
an active part in the sacrifice. 

That in addition to the opus operatum, there 
must, in general, also be an opus operantts, is evi- 


dustitiam, pro pluribus  sacrifictis Specht, Die Wirkungen des eucha- 
stipendium accipere et sacrificium ristischen Opfers, $ 29. 

unum ofrerre.’ (Denzinger-Bann- 14 Tournely, De Eucharistia, qu. 
wart, n. 1110).— Cfr. De Lugo, De 8, art. 6. Billuart’s answer in De 
Eucharistia disp. 19, sect. 12; Th. Eucharistia, diss. 8, art. 5. 


EFFECTS OF THE MASS 387 


dent from the fact that the efficacy of the Mass 
depends not only on the objective dignity of the 
sacrificial gift, but likewise on the subjective 


worthiness and disposition of the celebrant and 
the faithful. 


a) To make the Sacrifice of the Cross fruitful for us, 
and to secure its application, Christ, the High Priest, 
offers Himself as a sacrifice which is quite independent 
of the merits or demerits of the Church, the celebrant, 
or the faithful present at the Mass, and consequently is 
for these an opus operatum. In regard to God, of course, 
Christ’s theandric act of offering Himself as a sacrifice 
constitutes an opus operantis. This peculiar kind of 
efficacy is one of the essential distinctions between the 
Sacrifice of the New Testament and the sacrifices of the 
Old, as was pointed out by the Tridentine Council: 
“This is indeed that clean oblation, which cannot be 
defiled by any unworthiness or malice of those that offer 
Or | 

b) Next after Christ, and in the second place, comes 
the Church as a juridical person, who, according to 
the express teaching of the same Council,! has re- 
ceived from her Divine Founder the institution of the 
Mass and also the commission constantly to ordain 
priests who will celebrate this most holy Sacrifice unto 
the end of time. St. Augustine speaks of “the daily 
sacrifice of the Church, who, being the body of the Head, 
offers up herself through Him.”17 As the Church is 


15 Sess. XXII, cap. 1: “Et haec relinqueret sacrificium. ... novum 


quidem illa munda oblatio est, quae 
nulla indignitate aut malitid offeren- 
tium inquinari potest.” 

16 SESSIURUXL II N cap meine hide: 
lectae sponsae suae Ecclesiae visibile 


instituit pascha seipsum ab Ecclesia 
per sacerdotes sub signis visibihbus 
immolandum.” 

Dew Cros Dei 20H, 
quotidianum Ecclesiae sacrihcium, 


388 "THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


the “ beloved Bride of Christ,” her daily sacrifice cannot 
but be agreeable to God, even though the celebrant should 
happen to be an unworthy priest; for, acting in his official 
capacity, even an unworthy priest offers a valid sacrifice, 
which, being the sacrifice of the Church as well as 
the self-sacrifice of Christ, remains essentially spotless 
and untarnished before God. From this point of view 
there are no “private Masses,” inasmuch as every 
Mass is offered in the name and by commission of the 
Church and therefore constitutes a solemn and_pub- 
lic act of divine worship. “ The sacred and holy Synod 
[of Trent] ... does not . . . condemn, as private and 
unlawful, but approves of and therefore commends those 
Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramen- 
tally, since those Masses also ought to be considered as 
truly common, partly because the people communicate 
spiritually thereat, partly also because they are celebrated 
by a public minister of the Church, not for himself only, 
but for all the faithful. . ...” 18 

To this special sacrificial activity of the Church, offer- 
ing up the Holy Sacrifice together with Christ, there 
corresponds as a special fruit an ecclesiastico-human 
merit, which, as De Lugo points out,!? is lost when Mass 
is said by an excommunicated or suspended priest, be- 
cause such a priest no longer acts in the name and with 
the commission of the Church. 

Weare compelled to concur in another view of Cardinal 
De Lugo, namely, that the value of the Mass is dependent 
on the greater or lesser holiness of the reigning pope, the 


quae quum ipsius capitis corpus sit,  populus christianus spiritualiter com- 
seipsam per ipsum discit offerre.”  municat, partim vero quod a publico 


18 Sess. XXII, cap. 6: ‘‘ Nec ta- Ecclesiae ministro non pro se tan- 
men [Ecclesia] Missas illas... ut tum, sed pro omnibus fidelibus ... 
privatas et illicitas damnat, sed pro- celebrentur.”’ 
bat atque adeo commendat, siquidem 19 De Eucharistia, disp. 19, sect. 


illae quoque Missae vere communes iD, my Te Os 
censeri debent, partim quod in eis 


ERUECTS OF THE MASS 389) 2. 


bishops, and the clergy throughout the world. The holier 
the Church is in her members (especially the pope and 
the episcopate), the more agreeable must be her sacrifice 
in the eyes of God. The human merit of the Church in 
offering up the Sacrifice of the Mass is, therefore, an opus 
operans of the Church as such, and consequently, being 
independent of the worthiness of the celebrant and the 
faithful, constitutes for these an opus operatum, which 
has impetratory effects similar to those produced by the 
sacramentals. 

c) With Christ and the Church is associated in the 
third place the celebrating priest, the representative 
through whom Christ offers up the sacrifice. If he be 
a man of great personal devotion, holiness, and purity, 
there will accrue an additional fruit, which will benefit 
himself and those in whose favor he applies the Mass. 
Hence the faithful are guided by a sound instinct when 
they prefer to have Mass celebrated by an upright and 
holy priest rather than by an unworthy one, since, in ad- 
dition to the chief fruit of the Mass, they secure this 
special fruit, which springs ex opere operantis from the 
‘piety of the celebrant and is for them, therefore, an opus 
operatum. 

d) In the fourth place must be mentioned those who 
take an active part in the Sacrifice of the Mass, e. g. 
the servers, sacristan, organist, singers, and, finally, the 
whole congregation. All these individuals are benefitted 
in proportion to their personal disposition. The ‘more 
fervent a prayer, the richer its fruit. Most intimate is the 
active participation in the sacrifice of those who receive 
holy Communion, since in their case the fruits of. Com- 
mtnion are added to those of the Mass. 

Aside from sacramental Communion, the most effective 
way of participating in-the benefits of the Mass is by 


390 "SW THIE BUCHARIOT AS ADAGRIFICH 
communicating spiritually, which means to have an 
ardent desire to receive the Eucharist with the priest. 
The Tridentine Council says: “The sacred and holy 
Synod would fain indeed that, at each Mass, the faithful 
who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual 
desire, but also by the sacramental participation of the 
Eucharist, that thereby a more abundant fruit might be 
derived from this most holy sacrifice.” *° 

A third means of deriving spiritual profit from the 
Mass is by making the intention of participating spirit- 
ually in all the Masses celebrated daily throughout the 
world. This intention is all the more fruitful if it is 
made at Mass itself. 

Since the benefits thus obtained are proportionate to 
the disposition of the individual and the purity of his 
motives, they are plainly acquired ex opere operantis.?* 


3. THE THREEFOLD FRUIT OF THE Mass.—The 
effects of the Mass which it produces er opere 
operato, whether they be impetratory or propitia- 
tory, are commonly called its “fruits.” The bene- 
ficiaries of these fruits are called passive partici- 
pants in the Holy Sacrifice? , They-tall into 
three categories: the community, the person or 
persons to whom the Mass is especially applied, 
and the celebrant. 


21 Cfr. De Lugo, De Eucharistia, 
disp. 19, sect. 11. 


20 Sess. XXII, cap. 6: ‘° Optaret 
quidem sacrosancta Synodus, ut in 


singulis Missis fideles adstantes non 
solum spiritualt affectu, sed sacra- 
mentali etiam. Eucharistiae percep- 
tione communicarent, quo ad eos 
sanctissimi huius sacrificiit fructus 
uberior proveniret.” 


22 Of course, the active partici- 
pants in the Mass are also passive 
participants in the sense above ex- 
plained, in fact they are benefitted 
by the fruits of the Holy Sacrifice 
in a particular manner. 


ERPECTS OR RHE, MASS 3013); 


a) According to the intention of our Divine Lord and 
His Church, every Mass that is celebrated, is offered up 
by the priest for those present at the Sacrifice, for the 
holy Catholic Church, the pope, the bishop of the diocese, 
for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, and 
for the salvation of the whole world. From this there 
results first of all a “ general fruit ” (fructus generalis) 
for all mankind, the bestowal of which lies immediately 
in the will of Christ and His Church, and can be frus- 
trated by no special intention on the part of the cele- 
brant. Scotus and a few other theologians hold that by 
virtue of this general fruit of the Holy Sacrifice every 
individual member ‘of the Church receives a remission 
of the temporal punishment due to his sins from every 
Mass celebrated on earth; but this theory is extremely 
doubtful.?® 


b) The second kind of fruit ( fructus specialis) 
is usually applied to living or deceased individ- 
uals according to the intention of the celebrant 
or the donor of a stipend. The practice of giv- 
ing and receiving Mass stipends is based on the 
maxim enunciated by St. Paul that he who serves 
the altar shall live thereof. This special fruit of 
the Mass (called also ministerialis or medius ) 
must be applied by the priest, who has received 
a stipend, according to the intention of the donor. 
Its “application” rests so exclusively with the 
priest that even the prohibition of the Church 
cannot render it inefficacious, though the celebrant 


23 Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 79, sect. 8, n. 2, 


392 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


would sin through disobedience were he to oppose 
her commands. | 


Since the effect of an application can be frustrated by 
circumstances (e. g. if a Mass were said for a deceased 
person already in Heaven), Suarez ** advises priests al- 
ways to add to the first a second intention (intentio 
secunda), which, should the first be inefficacious, will 
take its place. 

That there is a special fruit of the Mass, which can 
be applied to either the living or the dead, according to 
the intention of the celebrant, though not an article of 
faith, is the express teaching of the Church. The contrary 
assertion of the Jansenist Council of Pistoia *® was con- 
demned by Pius VI in his dogmatic Bull “ Auctorem 
Fidei.” 2° The practice of offering Masses for particular 
persons or intentions goes back to the primitive Church 77 
and would be absolutely unintelligible had not the Church 
believed in the doctrine under consideration. 

c) The third and last kind of fruit (fructus personalis 
s. specialissimus) falls to the personal share of the cele- - 
brant, since,— apart from his worthiness and piety (opus 
operantis),— it were unfair that he should come empty- 
handed from the Sacrifice. This fruit of the Mass is 
entirely personal and most probably cannot be applied to 
others. | 


Although the development of the ecclesiastical 
teaching in regard to the threefold fruit of the 


24 Op. cit., disp. 79, sect. 10. 

25% .. quasi nullus — specialis 
fructus proveniret ex specialt appli- 
catione, quam pro determinatis per- 
sonis aut personarum ordinibus fa- 
ciendam commendat ac praecipit 
Ecclesia, speciatim a pastoribus pro 


suis ovibus.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, 
n.1530). 

26“ Falsa, temeraria, perniciosa, 
Ecclesiae iniuriosa, inducens in er- 
rorem alias damnatum in Wicleffo.” 


277. supra, Sect. 1. 


EFFECTS OF THE MASS 393 


Mass begins only with Scotus,” it is based on the‘ 
very essence of the Sacrifice itself.” 

4. THE SpEcIAL MoDE oF EFFICACY OF THE 
Mass AS A SACRIFICE OF PROPITIATION.—As a 
propitiatory sacrifice the Mass has a double func- 
tion, 7. e. to obliterate actual sins (effectus propi- 
tiatorius), and to take away such temporal pun- 
ishments as may still remain to be endured for 
sins forgiven (effectus satisfactorius). Both ef- 
fects are expressly mentioned by the Tridentine 
Council.” 

A problem of some difficulty is whether this 
double effect ex opere operato is produced medi- 
ately or immediately. 

a) Regarding mortal sins, we maintain as cer- 
tain, in opposition to some older theologians, that 
the Mass can never accomplish the forgiveness of 
such sins otherwise than by way of exciting con- 
_ trition and penance, and therefore only mediately 
through procuring for the sinner the grace of 
conversion. 


a) Aragon and Casalius held that the Mass remits mor- 
tal sins per se, in the same way as Baptism and Pen- 
ance. Gregory of Valentia maintained that it remits them 
per accidens after the fashion of certain Sacraments of 
the living. Neither view is tenable, since even the 
Sacrifice of the Cross itself, from which the Mass de- 

28 Quaest. Quodlib., 1. 20, n. 4. Wirkungen Ne eucharistischen Op- 


29 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucha- fers, pp. 149 sqq. 
ristia, VI, 6 saq.; Th, Specht, Die 30 Sess. XXII, can. 3. 


304° THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE 


rives its entire efficacy, does not effect the immediate for- 
giveness of mortal sins, but merely bestows certain effi- 
cacious graces, by means of which the sinner can attain 
justification, either through making an act of perfect 
contrition or worthily receiving the Sacrament of Pen- 
ance. To say that the Mass blots out mortal sins imme- 
diately and ex opere operato, is to confuse it with the 
Sacraments of the dead and to deny their necessity (ne- 
cessitas medii) for salvation. St. Thomas says: “ The 
Eucharist, in so far as it is a sacrifice, ... blots out 
mortal sins, not as a proximate cause, but by securing 
the grace of contrition.” * The Council of Trent ap- 
proves this teaching: “The holy Synod teaches that 
this sacrifice is truly propitiatory. ... For the Lord, 
appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace 
and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and 
sins.” °? This conciliary definition indicates in how far 
the propitiatory efficacy of the Mass is derived ex opere 
operato. God is first appeased by the oblation and subse- 
quently moved to grant sufficient (though not necessarily 
efficacious) graces to enable the sinner to make a worthy 
confession or an act of perfect contrition. 

ß) As regards venial sins, the Tridentine Council says 
that the salutary virtue of the unbloody Sacrifice is “ ap- 
plied to the remission of those sins which we daily com- 
mit.” °®® From this Melchior Cano, Henriquez, Azor, and 
a few other theologians concluded that the Mass, as a sac- 


31 Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 
12, p. 2, art. 2: ‘ Eucharistia, in- 
quantum est sacrificium, » x » pec- 
cata mortalia in eis delet non sicut 
causa proxima, sed inquantum gra- 
tiam contritionis eis impetrat.”’ 


32. Sess) XLS cap, "2: © Docer 


sancta Synodus, sacrificium istud 
vere propitiatorium esse... . Huius 


quippe oblatione placatus Dominus 
gratiam et donum poenitentiae con- 
cedens crimina et peccata etiam in- 
gentia dimittit.”’ (Denzinger-Bann- 
wart, n. 940). 

83°... im remissionem eorum, 
quae a nobis quotidie committuntur 
peccatorum.” (Sess. XXII, cap. 1). 


ee DD u 


|) u de at 


EFFECTS OF THE MASS 395 


rifice of expiation, directly blots out venial sins. But this 
deduction is unwarranted. On the contrary, it is the com- 
_mon teaching of Catholic theologians that the forgiveness 
of venial sins also requires actual grace, 7. e. the grace of 
contrition.** The Mass as such is a Sacrifice, not a Sacra- 
ment. The following argument is as simple as it is con- 
vincing: If the pious attendance at Mass, or the effica- 
cious application of the Haly Sacrifice, is unable to earn 
for any one immediately the first grace of justification, 
then it is also unable to merit the so-called justificatio 
secunda, which consists in an increase of sanctifying 
grace. The contrary hypothesis would entail the absurd 
conclusion that to have Masses said for the souls of bap- 
tized children would increase the sacramental grace of 
Baptism ad infimitum. 


b) Concerning the remission of the temporal 
punishments due to sin, our judgment must be 
different. : 


The reason lies in the intrinsic distinction between 
sin and its punishment. Without the personal codperation 
and sorrow of the sinner, forgiveness is impossible. This 
cannot, however, be said of a mere remission of punish- 
ment. One person may validly discharge the debts of 
another, without apprizing the debtor of his intention. 

a) The satisfactory effect of the Mass is immediate and 
wrought er opere operato. This can be shown as follows: 
The Council of Trent defines that the souls in purga- 
tory are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, “ prin- 
cipally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar.” ** This 
help must come immediately and ex opere operato, be- 

34 Cfr. De Lugo, De Eucharistia, bili altaris sacrificio_iuvari’’ (Sess. 


disp. 19, sect. 9, n. 152. XXV, De Purg.; Denzinger-Bann- 
35“ , . potissimum vero accepta- wart, n. 983). 


390... THE EUCHARIST AS’ A. SACRIFICE 


cause a dead person can no longer give satisfaction for 
his sins (satisfacere) by acquiring supernatural merits: 
all he can do is to atone for them by suffering (satispati). 
There is no reason to assume that the case is different 
with the living, and consequently the satisfactory effect 
of the Mass with them, too, is immediate and er opere 
operato. 

8) In order to make sure of the fructus specialis of the 
Mass as a sacrifice of satisfaction, a person must (1) be 
capable of receiving those fruits; he must (2) be in the 
state of pilgrimage; he must (3) have the right disposi- 
tion, and (4) stand in need of satisfaction. 

(1) To be able to receive these fruits, a person must 
be baptized. Baptism is the “ spiritual door ” not only 
to the Sacraments, but also to the Sacrifice of the Mass 
in so far as it is a sacrifice of propitiation. Its impetra- 
tory effects can be applied also to non-believers. 

(2) To receive the special fruits of the Mass as re- 
gards satisfaction for the temporal punishments of sin, 
one must be in the state of pilgrimage (in statu viae). 
The attainment of the status termini either in Heaven or 


in hell renders all satisfaction either unnecessary or im-. 


possible. As regards the middle state of purgatory, we 
have already shown that the fruits of the Mass can be 
applied to the poor souls. Is this application infallible? 
Soto, Cano, and others doubt it, for the reason that 
the effectus satisfactorius of the Mass can be applied to 
the departed only per modum suffragii. Nevertheless, 
the majority of theologians hold with Suarez ** that 
Masses for the dead infallibly remit, if not all, at least 
part of the punishments due to their sins. 

(3) The recipient must have the right disposition, that 


36 De Eucharistia, disp. 79, sect. 10, n. 3 sqq 


— 


Kr 


ERBECTS OR THE MASS 397 


2 


is, he must be in the state of sanctifying grace?” The. 
punishments due to mortal sins cannot be remitted until 
the sins have been blotted out. 
(4) Finally, the recipient must stand in need of satis- 
faction. This condition would be absent in the case of 
one who had already obtained remission of all the pun- 
ishments due to his sins by either actively or passively 
making satisfaction for them. One who is in the state 
of mortal sin clearly stands in need of such satisfaction, 
though the need cannot be satisfied until he has obtained 
forgiveness of his sins by a worthy confession.3® 


ReADINGS:— G. Sanchez, Spiritualis Thesaurus Missae, Ingol- 
stadt 1620.—*Cardinal Bona, De Sacrificio Missae Tractatus 
Asceticus, new ed., Ratisbon 1909.— K. Weickum, Das hl. Mess- 
opfer, Handbuch für Prediger und Katecheten, Ratisbon 1865. 
—J. Kössing, Liturgische Erklärung der hl. Messe, zrd ed., 
Ratisbon 1869.— J. P. Olivier, Solutions Théologiques et Litur- 
giques Touchant le Saint Sacrifice de la Messe, Paris 1873.— 
*Thos. Specht, Die Wirkungen des eucharistischen Opfers, Augs- 
burg 1876.—M. Müller, The Holy Mass, the Sacrifice for the 
Living and the Dead, New York 1879.—L. Bacuez, Du Divin 
Sacrifice et du Prétre qui le Celebre, Paris 1888.— Kl. Lüdtke, 
Erklärung des hl. Messopfers, Danzig 1892.—J. Walter, Die hl. 
Messe, der grösste Schatz der Welt, 7th ed., Brixen 1909.—N. 
Gihr, Das hl. Messopfer dogmatisch, liturgisch und aszetisch 
erklärt, 11th ed., Freiburg 1912; (English translation, The Holy 
Sacrifice of the Mass Dogmatically, Liturgically, and Ascetically 
Explained, 4th ed. St. Louis 1914).— Cardinal Vaughan, The 
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and ed., St. Louis 1900—W. J. 
Kelly, The Veiled Majesty, or Jesus in the Eucharist, London 
1903.— A. Devine, C. P., The Sacraments Explained, 3rd ed., pp. 
270 sqq., London 1905.— J. C. Hedley, O. S. B., The Holy Eucha- 
rist, pp. 227 sqq., London 1907. 

87 Che St. Thomas, Summa 88 Cfr. Tepe, Inst. Theol., Vol. 
Theol., 3a, qu. 79, art. 7, ad 2. IV, pp. 333 sqq. 


INDEX 


AARON, 43, 280, 305, 329. 

Abercius, Stele of, 84. 

Abraham, 106, 302, 305. 

Absolute accidents, 145 sqq., 152 
sqq. 

Accidentia sine subiecto, 145 
sqq. 

Adam, 290. 

Addai and Mari, 
213, 320 

Addiction, Scotistic theory of, 
125 sqq. 

Adorableness of the Holy Eu- 
charist, 136 sqq. 

Agar, 33, 35. 

Alanus of Lille, 111. 

Albertus Magnus, 08. 

Albigenses, 81, 256, 316, 317. 

Alexander VIII, 271. 

Alexander of Hales, 181. 

Alexandria, School of, 73 Sq. 

Alger of Liege, 48. 

Alphonsus de’ Liguori, St., 140, 
183, 347, 384. 

Altars, 281, 315. 

Amalarius of Metz, 161. 

Ambrose, St., 66, 121, 138, 200, 
250, 320, 327, 334. 

Ambrosius Catharinus, 201. 

Andrew, St., 323. 

Anglicans, 10, 36,050; 1247, 253, 


Liturgy of, 


300. 

Antioch, School of, 73. 

Antoine, 366 

Apostles, Phe 20° $4: 57,83, QI, 
199, 257. 

Apostolic Constitutions, 132 sq., 
263, 319. 

Apparences eucharistiques, 151. 


Apparent contradictions in the _ 
399 


mystery of the Real Presence, 
144 sqq. 

Application of the special fruits 
of the Mass, 391. 

Aquarians, 195. 

Arians, 260. 

Aragon, 393. 

Armenians, 82, 193. 

Arminians, 50, 

Arnauld, 55, 164. 

Arriaga, 353. 

Artolatria, 26, 141. 

Aspersio sanguinis, 282. 

Athanasius, St., 61, 260. 

Atzberger, 12, 149 sq., 360. 

Augsburg Confession, 49. 

Augustine, St., 3, 21, 67 Sq, 74; 
76, 77, 78, 79, 139, 221, 223, 
238 sqq., 270, 278, 285, 305, 328 
$q., 370, 377, 387. 

Auxerte, a of (578), 266. 

Azor, 394. 

Azyma, IQI sqq. 


B 


BALLERINI, 384. 

Banquet, The Eucharistic, 225 
Sq., 322, 344 

Baptism, 133, 237, 239, 240 SQ, 
245, 266, 395, 390. 

Bardenhewer, 75: 

Basil, St., 61, 122, 206, 250, 320. 

Basle, Council of (1431), 246. 

Bautz, 363. 

Bayma, Jos Sn fange 

Becanus, 125, 351. 

Bellarmine, Card. 3307114, 125 
126, 165, 181, 182, 252, 283, 
343. 


400 INDEX 


Berengarius, 30, 45, 46, 47 sq., 
51,52, o1,.111, 114, 116, 161; 

Berlage, 363. 

Berning, W., 37. 

Bessarion, Card., 205, 212, 

Bickell, 319. 

Billot, Card., 359 sqq., 368. 

Billuart, 125, 165, 362, 384. 

Bilocation, 181 sqq. 

Bisping, 313. 

Body, Effect of Communion on 
the human, 233 sq. 


Bonaventure, St. 43, 44, 168, 


252. 

Bosco, 347. 

Bossuet, 164, 362. 

Bread as an element of the 
Sacrament of the Eucharist, 
189 sqq. 

Bread of Heaven, 2, 11, 12, 15, 


227: 
Bread of Life, 12, 13, 14 sq. 
Bread of the Angels, 2, 265. 
Breaking of bread, 1, 85. 
Breaking of the host, 342. 
Butzer, 129. 


c 


C#SARIUS OF ARLES, St., 97. 

Cain and Abel, 290, 

Cajetan, 384. 

Calixtines, 246. 

Calvin and the Calvinists, 30, 
51, 547° 551, 0L,, 120, 131,101, 
222, 247, 277, 315, 316. 

Cano, Melchior, 341 sq. 304, 


396. 
Canon of the Mass, 209 sqq. 
Capharnaum, Christ’s discourse 

at, Io sqq. 

Carlstadt, 32, 50, 81, 129, 315. 
Cartesianism, 148, 150 sq., 158, 

163 sq. 

Carthage, Council of (397), 318. 

Casajoana, 163. 

Casalius, 353, 393. 

Gatacombs, 83 sq. 

Catechumens, 266, 273. 

Catholic Encyclopedia, 84. 

Chalcedon, Council of .(451), 
318. 


Chaldzans, 82. 
Chalice, 194 sq., 263, 309 sqq.; 
Not given to the laity, 246 


sqq. 

Charles IX, 247. 

Cheffontaines, 201. 

Chemnitz, 134, 251. 

Christology, 69 sqq., 136. 

Chrysostom, St., 20, 47, 63 sq., 
74, 94, 121, 122, 132, 161, 200, 
205, 206, 212, 223, 250, 320, 
327 Sq., 376. 

Cienfuégos, Card., 173, 352, 355, 
367. 

Clement of Alexandria, 73, 190. 

Collyridians, 256. 

Communion, 2, 14, 21, 22, 60, 71 
sQ., 79 sq., 86, 93, 129, 133, 
136,138, 139, 215, 219, 220 
sqq.. 230; Under one kind, 
246 sqq.; Unworthy, 268 sq.; 
Preparation required for, 270 
sq.; Communion of the priest 
in the Mass, 343 sqq. 

Concomitance, Law of, 88 sqq., 
95. 

Concupiscence allayed by the 
Holy Eucharist, 229 sq. 

Confirmation, 238. 


Consecration, The words of, as 


form of the Sacrament of the 
Holy Eucharist, 198 sqq.; 
What words are essential in, 
209 sq.; The minister of, 256 
sqq.; The real sacrificial act, 
340 sqq.; The double Conse- 
cration as the physical es- 
sence of the Mass, 345 sqq. 

Constance, Council of (1414- 
1418), 146, 152, 246, 247, 253, 
317. 

Consubstantiation, 49, 113, 117. 

Contenson, 233. 

Contradictions, Apparent, In 
the dogma of the Real Pres- 
ence, 144 sqq. 

Conversion, 103 sqq. 

Copts, 82. 

Cor. XI, 24 sq.—24 sqq. 

Cornelius a Lapide, 300. 

Corpus Christi, Feast of, 139 sq. 


/ 


ee - 4 
ie u 
Ne St 


EZ tes . 


INDEX 


Corpus Christi Procession, 140. 

Corruptio specierum, 134. 

Covenant, 40 

Cross, The Mass in its relation 
to the Sacrifice of the, 332 


sqq. 

Cyprian; St, 50 sq.;..106, 224; 
259, 305, 318, 325 sq., 334, 348, 
377,_379. 

Cyril Lucaris, 81. 

Cyril of Alexandria, ST.,,22,04 
Sq., 71, 73, 90, 121, 131, 368. 
Cyril of Jerusalem, Sts Olrsd. 
75, 90, 96 sq., 121, 138, 319 sq., 

326 sq., 375, 379. 


D 


Davin, 31. 

Deacons, 259, 262 sqq., 318. 
ead, Communion given to the, 
266; Masses for the, 376 sq., 
385, 305 Sd. 

De Augustinis, 367. 

Decretum pro Armenis, 93 Sq., 
95 sq., 190, 203; 2137225,.227: 

en of the Eucharist, 6 


ne 185 sq., 362. 


Delectatio spiritualis produced 


by the Holy Eucharist, 227 


sq. 

Delitzsch, 13. 

‘De Lugo, 98, 105, 125, 148, 165, 
2724,181,%197, 224, 252,283, 
284, 289, 343, 388. 

ah Card, <352, 365:saq°, 


388. 
Denis, St., 250. 
De San, 181. 
Descartes, 150 sq., 163. 
Destruction of the sacrificial 
victim, 283 sqq., 344, 365 sqq. 
De Walenburch, 351. 
Dicastillo, 362. 
Didache, 85, 322. 
Dieringer, 363. 
Dieterich, 13. 
Dignity of the Eucharist, 4 sqq. 
Dionysius the Great, 69. 
Discipline of the Secret, aR 


73, 74, 395. 


401 

Divinity of Christ, 25. 
Docetism, 45, 56, 70. 
Dositheus, 81. 
Dresseli E48. u58 
Drouin, 151. 
Durand, 37. 
Durandus, 48, 113, 119. 
Dynamic presence, 51. 
Dynamism, 156 sqq. 

E 
Eat one’s flesh, 16 sq. 
Eck, Johann, 341. 
Egger, 367. 
Einig, 367. 
Elias, 66. 
Ephesus, Council of (431), 21, 

82, 318. 

Ephraem, St., 71. 
Epiklesis, 198, 202 sqq.; Pos- 


sesses no consecratory value, _ 
210 sqq., 341. 
Epiphanius, St., 74, 260. 
Epistula Presbyterorum Achai- 
002323, 
Estius; 1092, 313, 
Eucharistic congresses, 140. 
Eucharistic controversies, The 
three great, 45 sqq. 
Eucharistic leagues, 140. 
Eugene IV, see Decretum pro 
Armenis. 
Eutychius, 97. 


F 


FABIAN, Pope, 242. 

Fabri, 164. 

Faith alone not sufficient for 
worthy Communion, 268. 

Fast, The Eucharistic, 269 sq., 


N 
Fernandez, 163. é 
Figurative interpretations of 


Christ’s words, 32 sqq. 

First Communion of children, 
243 sq. 

Fish symbol, 84. 

Florence, Council of (1439), 
SI, 191, 104, 203, 205, 211, 212 
Sq., 215, 317. 


402 


Formula of Concord, 51, 120. 

Fourth dimension, 164. 

Fractio Panis, 84 sq., 151, 342. 

Franzelin, Card., 43, 105, 121, 
156, 174, 182, 283, 366 sq. 

Frassen, 347. 

Frederick William IV, 50. 

Frequent Communion, 230, 242 
sqq. 

Fruits of Communion, 231; Of 
the Mass, 381 sqq. 

Fulgentius, St., 239. 


G 


GAUFRED, III. 

Gelasius, Pope, 71, 251, 320. 

Gerson, Charlier de, 253. 

Gihr, 360. 

Glossner, 363. 

Gnostics, 70, 71. 

Gonet, 363, 384. 

Gotti, 363. 

Gratia sacramentalis of the Eu- 
charist, 226 sq 

Greek eee Church, 81 
sq., 202 sq. 

Gregory the Great, 320, 334 sq., 
370; 370. be 

Gregory VII, 52. 

Gregory of Nazianzus, St., 61, 
347. 

Gregory of Nyssa, St., 61, 121, 
205, 368, 369. 

Gregory of Valentia, 148, 393. 

Guitmund, 48. 

Gutberlet, 182, 364, 369. 


H 


HAAN, 182. 

Happiness, The Eucharist a 
pledge of eternal, 232 sqq. 

Harnack, Adolph, 67, 83, 195. 

Hartmann, Ed. von, 158. 

Heavenly Sacrifice of Christ ac- 
cording to Thalhofer, 358. 

Heimbucher, 233. 

Henno, 347. 


Henriquez, 347, 304. 
Heribert of Auxerre, 160 sq. 


INDEX 


Heriger, 47. 

Hilary, St, 65, 70. 

Hildebert of Tours, III. 

Hippolytus, St., 58 sq. 

Hoffmann, J., 13. 

Holtzklau, 366. 

Holy Ghost as co-consecrator, 
213 sqq. 

Holy Orders, 257. 

Hoppe, L. A.; 20T. 

Host, 4, 159. 

Hurtado, C., 362. 

Hurter, H nn J..5156,4367. 

Hus a the Hussites, 22, 246 


Sq. 
Hydroparastatae, 105. 
Hylomorphism, 155 sqq. 
Hylozoism, 158. 
Hypostatic Union, 92 sq., 114 
Sq:, 141, 103,221; 


I 


IcONOCLASTS, 22. 

Ignatius of Antioch, St., 56 sq., 
FO 232.323, 

Immutatio perfectiva, 354. 

Impanation, 114, 116. 

Increase of sanctifying grace 
effected by the Holy Eucha- 
rist, 222 sqq. 

Index, S. Congr. of the, 151. 

Infants, The Eucharist not nec- 
essary for the salvation of, 
236 sqq.; The Eucharist ad- 
ministered to, under the spe- 
cies of wine, 237 sq., 250; 
Why Communion was given 
to, in the ancient Church, 240 
-$q. 

Innocent III, 197, 200, 201. 

Institution of the Sacrament, 
23 sqq. 

Irenaeus, St., I, 58, 71, 191, 196, 
204, 324. sq. 

Isaias, 301. 

Ischyras, 260. 


JACOB, 31. 


INDEX 


Jacobites, 82. 

Jacob of Misa, 246. 

Jansenism, 271. 

Jephta, 352. 

Jerome, St., 132, 259, 376. 

Jerusalem, "Schismatic Council 
01 C1072) 7781, 130,203, 317. 

Jews, 18 sq., 40 sq., 266, 328, 380. 

John VI, 25—72, 10 sqq. 

John Damascene, St., 90, 
205. 

John Darugensis, 82 sq. 

John of Paris, 114. 

Juliana, St., 140. 

Justin Martyr, St., 57, 85, 193, 
196, 204, 223, 259, 323. 


K 


121, 


KABASILAS OF THESSALONICA, 
218,230, 

a 13) 

Keil, 

Kelvin” 157. 

Kenosis, 284, 354, 359, 366, 369. 

Kind, Communion under one, 
240 sqq. 

Kostlin, 13 


L 


LAHOUSSE, 182. 

Lamy, Th., 65. 

Lanfranc, 47, 48. 

“La Perpetuite de la Foi,’ 55. 

Last Supper in its relation to 
the Mass, 339 sq. 

Lateran, Fourth Council of the 
(1215), III, 194, 242, 243, 256, 
317. 

Lebrun, 211. 

Ledesma, 343, 384. 

Legrand, 163. 

Leibniz, 134, 154, 156. 

Leo I, the Great, Pope, 68. 

Leo'1X, 102. 

Leow Xlid, 237; 

Lessing, 48, 362 sqq. 

Lessius, 123, 165, 368. 

- Liturgies, Ancient, The Real 

Presence in the, 97; Tran- 


403 | 


substantiation in, 122 sq; The - 
Epiklesis in, 205 sq; The 
Mass in, 319 sqq. 

Liturgy of St. James, 139, 370. 

Loaves of Proposition, 16. 

Locutiones sacramentales, 39 
sqd. 

Loofs, 67. 

Luciferians, 259. 

Lucina, Catacomb of Sin oy 

Luke XXI 19 sqq.—23 sqq. 

Luthardt, 251. 

Luther, 32 sq., 48 sq., 81, 113, 
117,120, 222, 247, 2506, 272, 
315, 316, 372. 

Lutheran Church, 50, 317. 

Lyons, Council of (1274), 81, 
111,337; 


M 


Macarius MAGNES, 60. 
Maignan, E., 151. 

Malachias, Prophecy of, 295 
sqq., 328, 368, 374. 
Maldonatus, 21, 238. 
Manichzans, 251. 

Manna, 14, 15 sq., 27, 66. 
Marcus Eugenicus, Zit, 

Mark XIV, 22 sqq.—23 sqq. 
Maronites, 82, 193. 

Martin V, 146, 152, 246. 
Maruthas, Bishop, 36. 

Mary, Blessed Virgin, 233. 
Mass of the Presanctified, 133, 


250 sq. 

Mass, The, 272 sqq.; Proved 
from Scripture and Tradition, 
295 sqq.; The argument from 
prescription, 214 «saq.3., Ehe 
argument from Tradition, 
322 sqq.; Nature of the, 331 
sqq.; Physical essence, 332 
sqq.; Identity with the Sacri- 
fice of the Cross, 337 sq.; Dif- 
ference between the two 
sacrifices, 338 sqq.; The Con- 
secration as the real sacrificial 
act, 340 sqq.; The . double 
Consecration as the physical 
essence of the Mass, 345 sqq.; 


404 


The metaphysical essence, 349 
sqq.; Causality of the Mass, 
371. sqq.;. Effects, 372. sag. ; 
How produced, 381 sqq. 

Mathatias, 31. 

Matth. XXV, 26 sqq.—23 sqq. 

Maurus, Sylvester, 183. ; 

“Mechanics of the supernat- 
ural,’> 165. 

Melanchthon, 49, 51, 129, 315. 

Melchisedech, Sacrifice of, 16, 

301 sqq., 329, 356, 308, 

Melchites, 82, 211. 

Mennonites, 50. 

Merovoiwos, 112. 

Michael Caerularius, 191, 192. 

Michael de Maria, 181. 

Missa, 273. 

Missal, 190. 

Mixture, The, 342. 

Monadism, 158. ; 

Monica, St., 329, 377. 

Monism, 158. 

Monophysites, 70 sq., 82 sq., 149 

Sq., 196, 317 sq. 

Montanists, 256. 

Moses, 14 sq., 40, 66, 105, 282, 
289, 290 sqq. 

Multilocation, 175 sqq. 

Muniessa, 366. 

Mystery of the faith, The Eu- 
charist as a, 5. 

Mystery of the Real Presence 
speculatively discussed, 143 


sqq. 
Mystical Body of Christ, 37 sq. 
Mystic slaying of the Eucha- 
ristic Lamb, 311, 360 sq. 


N 


Names, Different, for the Eu- 
charist, I sq. 

Necessity of the Holy Eucharist 
for salvation, 235 sqq.; For 
children, 236 sqq.; For adults, 
241 sqq. 

Nestorians, 70 sq., 82, 83, 317 sq. 

Nestorius, 21, 64, 320. 

New Testament, 31, 40. 

Newton, 156. 


INDEX 


- 


Nicaea, First Council of (325), 
259, 318. 

Nicaea, Second Council of 
(787), 22, 82. 

Nicetas, 161. 

Nicole, 55. 

Nominalists, 173, 182. 


O 


OECOLAMPADIUS, 32, 37, 54, 315. 
Offertory, 340 sq. 

Optatus, St., 132. 

Origen, 73, 74, 160, 190, 193, 259. 
Osiander, 114, 117. 

Oswald, 42, 159, 163, 240, 363. 
Ostwald, 157. 

Ozias, 280. 


pP 


Pagan practices resembling the 
Eucharist, 233 sq. , 

Pallavicini, 105. 

Palmieri, 157. 

Paludanus, 110. 

Pantheism, 158. 

Paris, Council of (1050), 52. 

Paschal Lamb, 16, 27, 40, 41. 

Paschasius Radbertus, 46 sq., 
81. 

Pastophoria, 132 sq. : 

Patristic difficulties against the 4 
Real Presence solved, 72 sqq. 

Paulinus, 250. & 

Paul of Samosata, 69. 

Paul, St., 15 sq., 26 sq., 39, 40, 
77, 85 SQ., 94, 181, 193, 109, 
221, 223, 237, 258, 303 Sqq., 
334), 335, 391. 

Pelagians, 239 sq. 

Penance, 245, 268. 

Pepuzians, 256. 

Permanence of the Real Pres- 
ence, 128 sqq. 

“Perpetual Prayer,” 140. 

Perrimezzi, J., 151. 

Perrone, 35%. 

Pesch ChraSs Je 128: 

Besch 1245.31 al 70182: 

Petavius, 238. 


of 


oe REAR Tere MRSA ORY RE Re ee NN. ER er ee 
DiS Nes RE Ge acl re eee Nn Na Che a Yi a Sl ne Sa 


ELT ; = 
i 1 


ie INDEX 405 


Peter Lombard, 200. 

Peter Mogilas, 203. 

Peter of Blois, 111. 

Peter of Dresden, 246. 

Peter,” SENIG, 

Philotheos Bryennios, 322. 

Photius, 81, 316 sq. 

Pierre d’Ailly, 110. 

Pierre de Bruis, 81. 

Prissy, Aon 1st. 

Pistoia, Jansenistic Council of 
(1786), 117, 118, 345, 392. 

Pius IV, 248. 

Pius VI, 118, 345, 392. 

Pinsev il: 211, 

Pius X, 243 sq., 245. 

Platel, 366. 

Polycarp, St., 58. 

Predication, Mode of, 158 sqq. 
Preparation required for Com- 
munion, 270 sq. 
Presence of the Eucharistic 

Body in space, 170 sqq. 


Priests, 256 sqq., 261 sq., 280 sq. 


Priscilla, Catacomb of St., 84. 
“ Private Masses,” 345, 388. 
Productio, 127. 

Prov. IX, 5—17 sq. 

Psalm, X XI, 300 sq. 
Pseudo-Ambrose, 200. 
Pseudo-Dionysius, 97. 

Pusey dlr, 12%, 


Q 


“Quam Singulari,” Decree of 
Pius X, 243 sq. 

Quantity in its relation to sub- 
stance, 153 sqq.; Internal and 


external, 165. sqq. 


“Qui pridie quam pateretur,’ 
207...” 


R 


RASPERGER, Chr., 33. 

Ratherius, 47. 

Rationalists, 50.. 

Ratramnus, 46. 

Real Presence, The, 9 sqq.; As 
a fact, 10 sqq.; Proof from S. 


Scripture, 10 sqq.; The prom- — 
ise, 10 sqq.; The institution, 
23 sqq.; Proof from Tradi- 
tion, 45 sqq.; Totality of the 
Real Presence, 88 sqq.: Oper- 
ative cause of the, 102 sqq.; 
Permanence of the, 128 sqq.; 
Speculative discussion of the 
mystery of the, 143 sqq. 

Receiving the Eucharist, Dif- 
ferent ways of, 267. 


= Reischl, +313. 


Renaud, Theophilus, 231. 

Renaudot, 55, 211. 

Renz, Fr., 283. 

Replicatio aequivalens produc- 
tioni, 123. 

Replication, 178 sq. 

Reproductio, 127. 

Reservation of the Blessed Sac- 
rament, 139. 

Resurrection, The Eucharist a 
pledge of a glorious, 232 sqq. 

“ Retransubstantiation,” 134. 

Reviviscence of the Eucharist, 
224 sq. 

Rhabanus Maurus, 46, 160. 

Rohling, 347. 

Rome, Council of (1059), 52. 

Rosmini, 236, 266, 

Rossignol, 163. 

Rupert of Deutz, 114. 


S 


“ SACRAMENTAL Expressions ” 
in the Bible, 39 sqq. 

Sacramental union between the 
Eucharistic Body and the spe- 
cies, 160 sq. 

Sacramentarian disputes, 33. 

Sacrament of the Altar, 3. 

Sacrament, The Holy Eucharist 
as a, 31 sq., 185 sqq.; Defini- 
tion, 185 sqq.; Matter, 189 
sqq.; Form, 198 sqq.; Effects, 
218 sqq.; Minister of conse- 
cration, 255 sqq.; Minister of 
distribution, 261 sqq.; Recipi- 
ent, 264 sqq.; Objective capa- 
city of recipient, 265 sqq.; 


406 INDEX 


Subjective worthiness of re- 


cipient, 267 sqq. 
Sacramentum permanens, 133. 
Sacramentum sacramentorum, 


4. 

“Sacra Tridentina Synodus,” 
Decree of Pius X, 243. 

Sacrifice, Explanation of term, 
272 sqq.,' 277. saq.; Constitu- 
ents of a, 279 sqq.; Definition 
of a, 286; Different kinds of, 
287 sqq.; The Mass, 292 sqq. 

Sacrifice, The Holy Eucharist 
as a, 272 sqq. to end of vol- 
ume. 

Sacrificial intent, 278 sq. 

maguens, bj 1ST: 

Saints, Masses in honor of the, 
378 sqq. 

Salmanticenses, 355. 

Samonas of Gaza, 211. 

Sanseverino, 181. 

Sara, 33, 35. 

Sarcophagy, 90. 

Sasse, 367. 

Schanz, 238. 

Scheeben, 283, 353, 369. 

Schell, 146, 203. 

Schmid, Fr., 347. 

Schneid, 181. 

Schopenhauer, 158. 

Schouppe, 347, 367. 

Scotists, 123 sq. 

Scotus, 43, 119, I8I, 207, 393. 

Scotus Eriugena, 47, 52, 81. 

Secchi, 157. 

Second intention in 
Mass, 302. 

Sense functions exercised by 
Christ in the Eucharist? 173 
sq. 

“ Separatione facta,’ 95 sqq. 

Simar, 356 sq. 

Simeon of Thessalonica, 236. 

Sins, Mortal, Preservation of 
the soul from, by the Holy 
Eucharist, 229 sq. 

Sins, Venial, Forgiven in the 
Holy Eucharist, 229, 394 sq. 

Smith, Sydney F., S. J., 253. 

Socinians, 50. 


saying 


Soto, Dominicus, 98, 343, 396. 

Species, Sacred, Whether they 
participate in the adoration 
rendered to our Lord in the 
Bl. Sacrament, 141 sq. 

Spiritlike mode of existence of 
the Eucharistic Body, 100 sq., 
162 sqq. 

Spiritual delight a secondary 
effect of the Holy Eucharist, 
227 sq. 

Stentrup, 347. 

Stephen of Autun, I1I. 

Stercoranists, 160 sq. 

Stockl, 363. 

Suarez,: 98,105, 111,145, 148, 
165,172). 18%, 7200, 200.224, 
226, 240, 252, 283, 288, 353 sqq., 
362, 392. 

Sylvester II, 47. 

Sylvius, 362. 


T 


TABLE of the Lord, 3. 

Taborites, 246. 

Tamburini, 366. 

Temporal punishments due to 
sin, Are they remitted by the 
Eucharist? 230 sq., 395 sq. 

Tepe. 231, 307: 

Tertullian; 59,70; 75,200, 250, 
324, 375, 377, 379. 

Thalhofer, 356 sqq. 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 73. 

Theodoret, 71, 73.521; 150. 

Theories regarding the meta- 
physical essence of the Mass, 
350 sqq. 

Theophoric processions, 130. 

Thomas, St., On the Eucharist 
as the greatest of Sacraments, 
4 sq.; On the words of insti- 
tution, 43; On the manner of 
existence of Christ’s Eucha- 
ristic Body, 101; Author of 
Eucharistic hymns, 140; On 
absolute accidents, 145, 155; 
On the quantity of the Eucha- 
ristic Body, 164; On how the 
Body of Christ becomes pres- 


INDEX 


ent in the Eucharist, 169; On 
the invisibility of Christ’s 
Body, 172; On multilocation, 
181; On the use of unleav- 
ened bread, 193; On the use 
of water with the wine, 106 
sq.; On the words of conse- 
cration, 200; On what words 
are essential in the form of 
consecration, 209; On the 
secondary effect of the Holy 
Eucharist, 227 sq.; On the in- 
fluence of the Eucharist upon 
concupiscence, 230; And upon 
temporal punishments due to 
sin, 230; On Easter Commun- 
ion, 242; On Communion un- 
der one kind, 252; On the 
minister of distribution of the 
Eucharist, 262; On unworthy 
Communion, 268 sq.; On the 
Eucharistic fast, 270; On 
venial sin as an impediment 
to the effects of the Holy Eu- 
charist,; 271; On sacrifices, 

278, 288; On the Mass in its 
relation to the Sacrifice of the 
Cross, 335; On the Consecra- 
tion, 346; On the destruction 
of the sacrificial victim, 354; 
On an effect of the Mass, 394. 

Thomists, 123 sqq., 182, 209 Sq. 

Tobias, 31. 

Toledo, Council of (675), 250. 

Tongiorgi, 157. 

Totality of the Real Presence, 
8 sqq. 

Tournely, 343, 386. 

Wouttee, A,.O0.8.B; 211. 

Transitory Sacraments, 133 sq. 

Transubstantiation, 65, 66, 67, 
82, 99, 100; Definition of, 103 
sqq.; History of the word, 
III sq; Dogmatic bearing of, 
112 sqq.; Proof from Scrip- 
ture, 116 sqq.; Theological 
controversies, 123 sqq. \ 

Tree of life, 200. 

Trent, Council of, 6, 22, 52 sqq., 
75, 89, 92, 94, 96, 98, 99,_ 108, 
109 sq., III, 117 sq., 129 sq., 


407 


131, 133, 136, 137, 140, 146, 147 
Sq., 152, 177 sq., 194, 195, 196, 
199, 202, 203, 218, 222, 220, 232, 
237, 238, 241, 242, 243, 247 Sq,, 
249, 252, 257, 258, 261, 267, 
268, 306, 314 Sq., 333, 330, 337, 
339,341, 343, 345, 34677357, 
302, 372, 378, 379,382, 387, 
388, 390, 393, 394, 395. 

Tpwyew, 15, 

eee Council in (692), 196, 
200. 


U 


ÜBIQUITARIANISM, 117: 

Ulloa, 366. 

Union of the soul with Christ, 
the principal effect of the 
Holy Eucharist, 220 sqq. 

Unleavened bread for the Eu- 
charist, 191 sqq. 

Unworthy Communion, 268 sq. 

Urban IV, 140, 

Utraquists, 22, 246 sqq. 


V 


VALUE of the Mass, 381 sqq. 

Varignon, 163, 164. 

Vasquez, 98, 114, 119, 125, 148, 
172, 283, 288, 350 sqq., 367, 384. 

Vercelli, Council of (1050), 52. 

Viaticum, 2. 

Victim of a sacrifice, Its trans- 
formation, 282 sqq. 

Viogné, 164. 

Vischer, 48. 

Visits to the Blessed Sacrament, 
140. 

Viva, 366. 

Votum sacramenti, 245. 


W 


WALDENSES, 256, 316, 

Water added to the wine in the 
Eucharist, 195 sq. 

Wiclif, 81, 146 sq., 272, 317: 

Wieland, 325. 

William of Auxerre, 98. 


408 


Wilpert, Msgr., 84. 


Wine as an element of the Eu- 


charist, 193 sqq.; Purity of 
Mass wine, 254. 

Wiseman, Card., 36. 

Witasse, 151. 

Wundt, 158. 


x 


XENAJAS, 83. 


INDEX 


bg 


Y, 
YSAMBERT, 165, 230. 
Z 


ZACH EUS, 260. 

Zill, 313. 

Ziska, 246. 

Zwingli, 19 sq., 32, 33, 35, 39, 50, 
54, 67, 81, 129, 315. 


Date Due 


~ 


vat 
ys 


Eee 


fists 


Library 


Sai 


ER leader iajesiy 
poe ae teens 


Speer 
setae 


Seminary- 


ca 


1 


Sees 
BEShoase 


n Theolo 


Princeto 


; AH 


Stat 


od 


camera in SEHE, DEE 


a Asie ats RER! : sa esisit 
Sera thig i 5 


Melae 


